[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sorry, I missed this before...

The high school variable is interesting, but at the end of the day there are still a greater percentage of educated people, right? We could get into high school dropout rates, the quality of their education, the relationships between IQ, job placement, and on and on and on, but like you've pointed out each of these stats don't tell an entire story by themselves.

I'm not trying to tell a whole story to come up with some sort of concrete meaning. We'll never agree on what constitutes a shithole, or rich culture, or any of that, let alone how to best paint a full and accurate story using these data points.

I'm saying that to me, being around dumb and ignorant people with not much going on culturally in the area is the makings of a shithole. School does not make people smart, but I'm sure you could find a datapoint which shows that people with an education tend to be less ignorant, and that urban areas tend to be more culturally rich by virtue of their racial demographics, resources, financial backing, etc. This isn't true of all cities, but it is of many of them.

Therefore, to me, the flyover states are generally shitholes as per my definition.

I think it's cheating to define "shithole" not to include places where people are afraid to go out because it's a gangbanger war zone.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think it's cheating to define "shithole" not to include places where people are afraid to go out because it's a gangbanger war zone.

Fine, include them too, I would never want to live there either. Still, within many cities you can avoid these sorts of scenes too.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Fine, include them too, I would never want to live there either. Still, within many cities you can avoid these sorts of scenes too.

You have just had an utter and total compassion fail.

It kinda shoulda matter that in every instance, the cool stuff one can get by living in a city is built on the backs of what amounts to a permanent underclass.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

You have just had an utter and total compassion fail.
It kinda shoulda matter that in every instance, the cool stuff one can get by living in a city is built on the backs of what amounts to a permanent underclass.

The cool stuff one can get anywhere is built on the backs of the permanent underclass, but it is also brought to us by the class of inventors, creators, creative minds, geeks, etc., many of which are enabled by the upperclass. Because I don't want to live in those particular crime heavy areas doesn't mean that I don't care about poverty, so I'm not sure I get what you are driving at here...

[subego]

Go to an urban shithole and try out your "this is a scene you can avoid" argument.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Go to an urban shithole and try out your "this is a scene you can avoid" argument.

I think I understand what you mean.

I should have said that this is a scene that *we* can avoid, since I'm assuming that the majority of us live in some sort of middle class lifestyle at some level above this level of poverty.

[subego]

Urban shitholes are a direct result of all the virtues you extol. What you arguing for creates them as a consequence.

This isn't a scene you're avoiding, it's a scene you, besson, are personally making.

These are genuine shitholes too. The kind of place a simple life in the country is something to fantasize about.

You, again, you personally, are responsible for the really nasty consequences of your argument.

Does that mean you say "**** it, no cities"? No, of course not. However, I'd say at a minimum, it requires you to give it more consideration in your argument than just how it affects you and your middle class pals.

[Shaddim]

Biting, but also true.

Also, it seems that avoiding those places is part of the problem. You avoid them, your buddies avoid them, companies avoid them, the government avoids them... It doesn't seem that ignoring the problem fixes anything.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm saying that to me, being around dumb and ignorant people with not much going on culturally in the area is the makings of a shithole.

Define culture.

Most places I've visited have it. You seem to be more concerned about them having someone else's as well. That's fine, but it's not a requirement or a necessity.

School does not make people smart, but I'm sure you could find a datapoint which shows that people with an education tend to be less ignorant,

Define ignorant.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm saying that to me, being around dumb and ignorant people with not much going on culturally in the area is the makings of a shithole.

Define culture.

Most places I've visited have it. You seem to be more concerned about them having someone else's as well. That's fine, but it's not a requirement or a necessity.

School does not make people smart, but I'm sure you could find a datapoint which shows that people with an education tend to be less ignorant,

Define ignorant.

Define "define"

[el chupacabra]

unfortunately this is one of those subjects I can't really agree with you on any points. I would be fine with generalizations except yours are backwards.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The difference is, a number of generalizations were based on actual statistical evidence of the specific claims I made rather than just personal experience. There is nothing here that can be really discussed.

So statistics done by someone else, I've never talked to, much less met, on a something that is rather subjective are more credible than first hand experiences? Interesting. One of the reasons I put more weight on experiences is because if I can come up with examples off the top of my head based on what I've seen then what I've seen must not be that rare. If your generalizations were even remotely accurate I probably wouldn't be able to use experiences to justify my position.

Lets see, a city slicker might be educated as an accountant for a big corporation; that is all he does; one, tiny, niche, like most city dwellers. A rural person might be a farmer, he likely knows how to do welding, mechanical work, and accounting for his business. I call that education. You're saying someone is uneducated because he doesn't have a piece of paper saying he is officially "educated" by the machine to do his niche. And lets face it, the only reason people bring up "education" is to make people look "ignorant". Your definition of education is just what liberal yuppies call education. You fail to realize that somebody has to work in the heat and cold, do manual labor, all the things you people have no respect or appreciation for; yet those people aren't constantly ragging on you saying how inefficient city life is or how worthless their jobs are... Even though they would be perfectly justified in doing so... I'm likely the first one you've heard, and really I'm just here to play the same game you are.

The rural areas need the urban areas too, unless they want to live completely disconnected from the rest of society with no technology.

And back on this, as far as developing technology goes, my uncle a country man, developed a new type of material for roofing, and a material to repair tires that can be found in auto-zone today. He didn't get the credit or reward he deserved because when he took it to the big city compounds and presented it, he wasn't as "educated" as the city folk were at lawyer speak swindling and got screwed... Lets admit it... That's how big cities get most their money... Not by actually being intelligent, creative, inventors, but buy knowing how to use government and corporate law to screw people. Luckily getting a few bad hands in life will never prevent a an intelligent rural conservative from achieving and living the life they want. Only liberals need big city government baby sitters every time something doesn't go their way. Oh but I forgot this more of a personal experience which doesn't count for much.

Cut out the stupid reactionary semantic bullshit. Let me walk you through this...
Urban populations statistically generally tend to be better educated, yes or no? If yes, proceed:
Urban populations statistically generally vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers, yes or no? If yes, proceed:
A simple venn diagram will tell you that Democrat votes (which come from urban areas in very large numbers) are generally more educated? Right? Still with me?
It's really this simple.

Believe it or not even rural people travel the world, visit the great wall of china, taj mahal, etc. If any culture is gained from that... Many people would argue you aren't experiencing the true culture of an area unless you visit the rural areas away from big cities and tourism. No matter where you go in the world. Of course none of that matters to you anyway because that only counts as experiences; which are nothing compared to being a city yuppy who sits and reads about other's experiences, statics, stories in a book or website. Reading about experiences in college and on citable websites is the true source of information about who is cultured, educated and who isn't. Then again, most city people just develop their mindset based on what they see on TV.

I'm saying that to me, being around dumb and ignorant people with not much going on culturally in the area is the makings of a shithole. School does not make people smart, but I'm sure you could find a datapoint which shows that people with an education tend to be less ignorant, and that urban areas tend to be more culturally rich by virtue of their racial demographics, resources, financial backing, etc.

So city folk consider themselves more “culturally rich” because they have a higher percentage of minority races within the same city limits of them; but they're all segregated to specific areas of town that liberal yuppies dare not venture. While rural areas are ignorant because they have less minorities; even though minorities in their areas aren't segregated and are actually part of a whole community... on personal level. The bigger the city the worse the segregation.

The China town of my area is ~40min from city center. Even many of the young people there don't speak English and have no intention of learning, same goes for Hispanic areas, can't really have much intercultural, interracial mingling if you can't communicate with other cultures.

The only place various races can usually be found together is a city's downtown. And it's not that the races are really coming together, it's that whoever is there is the same prefab uppity liberal yuppy culture. Yuppies meet a few yuppy Indian and black friends only because they were forced to at work or school and they act like they're the cultured dark night coming back from a pilgrimage to Bhutan. How often do you or your “culturally rich” associates, hang out in the poor black area of town? No matter what city I visit I’m pressed to see all these compassionate white liberal types in those parts of town, even for so much as a volunteer event. You see them at the bar with LIVE music, getting drunk, bragging about their important job, tanning at the pool for hours on end; life is like a frat party to the adult yuppy. A culture of superficiality. If yuppies really cared to experience a different culture than their own they would at the very least, frequent the black, Vietnamese, and Hispanic areas of town. What culture exists in the city is in those places. Unfortunately we already know since these aren't yuppy cultures with art museums and theater districts, and tend to have higher crime rates, you consider them the “shit hole” parts of town to be “avoided”.

When depressions and disaster hit, big city people are the first to be laid off, and require soup lines. Not to worry though; while bitter angry liberals are screaming red about their superiority, openminded-ness, and demanding food, the big bad ignorant racist cultureless religious rural people will be there to give it to them.

[besson3c]

Quote:

So statistics done by someone else, I've never talked to, much less met, on a something that is rather subjective are more credible than first hand experiences?

Yes. Your sample size is too small.



Quote:

If your generalizations were even remotely accurate I probably wouldn't be able to use experiences to justify my position.

What generalizations am I making? I'm citing statistical patterns.


Quote:

A rural person might be a farmer, he likely knows how to do welding, mechanical work, and accounting for his business. I call that education.

You can call it that if you want, but does not necessarily indicate education. It indicates some trade skills and knowledge in these specific areas. Our education system is designed to develop critical thinking abilities. He may very well have them, but he could have also learned these skills by rote.



Quote:

And back on this, as far as developing technology goes, my uncle a country man, developed a new type of material for roofing, and a material to repair tires that can be found in auto-zone today. He didn't get the credit or reward he deserved because when he took it to the big city compounds and presented it, he wasn't as "educated" as the city folk were at lawyer speak swindling and got screwed... Lets admit it... That's how big cities get most their money... Not by actually being intelligent, creative, inventors, but buy knowing how to use government and corporate law to screw people. Luckily getting a few bad hands in life will never prevent a an intelligent rural conservative from achieving and living the life they want. Only liberals need big city government baby sitters every time something doesn't go their way. Oh but I forgot this more of a personal experience which doesn't count for much.

And I'm the one making generalizations? Wow... Do you understand the concept of sample sizes?



Quote:

Believe it or not even rural people travel the world, visit the great wall of china, taj mahal, etc. If any culture is gained from that... Many people would argue you aren't experiencing the true culture of an area unless you visit the rural areas away from big cities and tourism. No matter where you go in the world. Of course none of that matters to you anyway because that only counts as experiences; which are nothing compared to being a city yuppy who sits and reads about other's experiences, statics, stories in a book or website. Reading about experiences in college and on citable websites is the true source of information about who is cultured, educated and who isn't. Then again, most city people just develop their mindset based on what they see on TV.

Are you okay? You're getting very emotional about this and making strange assumptions about somebody you don't really know. I'll leave the rest until you have finished venting.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Define culture.
Most places I've visited have it. You seem to be more concerned about them having someone else's as well. That's fine, but it's not a requirement or a necessity.
Define ignorant.

Most places do have some sort of culture, I'm not suggesting that any particular form of culture is better than another, but there are varying levels of "richness" to culture. This richness has nothing to do with social class, I'm actually generally not a fan of yuppie sorts of environments like el chup was venting about. For instance, I generally eat in hole-in-the-wall restaurants of any kind far more than I do upscale trendy yuppie sorts of restaurants. The richness I'm referring to is how culture is promoted, celebrated, displayed, and in some cases how diverse it is (although it doesn't necessarily have to be diverse).

I'm sure you guys are going to pull the "define rich" thing on me, but if you are going to do that, please tell me if the thought has ever occurred to you that, just for instance, a culture involving only light beer and Nascar might be a little lacking to those that aren't interested in either? I guess if your life is about light beer and Nascar this culture would seem rich to you if the celebration of these things was done in a tasteful and pleasing way to you, and I'm not suggesting that this culture is somehow inferior, but particularly if it isn't celebrated in a very stimulating and/or provocative way, it would be narrow in scope, and lacking richness.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Urban shitholes are a direct result of all the virtues you extol. What you arguing for creates them as a consequence.
This isn't a scene you're avoiding, it's a scene you, besson, are personally making.
These are genuine shitholes too. The kind of place a simple life in the country is something to fantasize about.
You, again, you personally, are responsible for the really nasty consequences of your argument.
Does that mean you say "**** it, no cities"? No, of course not. However, I'd say at a minimum, it requires you to give it more consideration in your argument than just how it affects you and your middle class pals.

I disagree.

The conditions that bring about poverty are varied and at times complex. Being choosing to be uncharitable and/or wishing to put their blinders on can help perpetuate poverty, but it doesn't *make* poverty. Not having money makes poverty, and there are a number of reasons why an area might not have money and therefore live in poverty.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes. Your sample size is too small.

What generalizations am I making? I'm citing statistical patterns.
 

And I'm the one making generalizations? Wow... Do you understand the concept of sample sizes?

We both know stats can be made to say anything.. and they are; so I will always take what I see and what makes sense over stats, unless I trust the source. That's pretty rare, because I've worked for government and private sector and in all my years I found most stats were fudged to say what they wanted them to say. At times I was the one ordered to make up lies to the public or whoever. For most cases the hypothesis should just be renamed predetermined conclusion.

You can call it that if you want, but does not necessarily indicate education. It indicates some trade skills and knowledge in these specific areas. Our education system is designed to develop critical thinking abilities. He may very well have them, but he could have also learned these skills by rote.

Going to college creates quite the opposite of critical thinking. It's designed to create people that will be good yes men to corporate America. It's designed to teach people how to have tps reports done on time.

Are you okay? You're getting very emotional about this and making strange assumptions about somebody you don't really know. I'll leave the rest until you have finished venting.

I come here for fun; We've all noticed here, every time someone disagrees with you you accuse them of being emotional. Perhaps you are being emotional. Feel free not to respond to the rest, like I said I'm just here to play the same game you are. You started this kind of a topic... Now you're acting like you expected some kind of serious talk about it or something?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

We both know stats can be made to say anything.. and they are; so I will always take what I see and what makes sense over stats, unless I trust the source. That's pretty rare, because I've worked for government and private sector and in all my years I found most stats were fudged to say what they wanted them to say. At times I was the one ordered to make up lies to the public or whoever. For most cases the hypothesis should just be renamed predetermined conclusion.
Going to college creates quite the opposite of critical thinking. It's designed to create people that will be good yes men to corporate America. It's designed to teach people how to have tps reports done on time.
I come here for fun; We've all noticed here, every time someone disagrees with you you accuse them of being emotional. Perhaps you are being emotional. Feel free not to respond to the rest, like I said I'm just here to play the same game you are. You started this kind of a topic... Now you're acting like you expected some kind of serious talk about it or something?

I was expecting people to behave reasonably.

[el chupacabra]

It's an internet forum besson, you shouldn't get so emotional and offended over it. You should know this because the last thing you do is behave reasonably according to your own standards it seems. See I make a besson3c post with the same type of generalizations and you get all worked up over it becaus instead of having a nice tea time convo about how red states are "shit holes" I reverse it to the city.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I disagree.

The conditions that bring about poverty are varied and at times complex. Being choosing to be uncharitable and/or wishing to put their blinders on can help perpetuate poverty, but it doesn't *make* poverty. Not having money makes poverty, and there are a number of reasons why an area might not have money and therefore live in poverty.

Semantics.

All those reasons just happen to cluster in every single American city. This isn't a coincidence.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

It's an internet forum besson, you shouldn't get so emotional and offended over it. You should know this because the last thing you do is behave reasonably according to your own standards it seems. See I make a besson3c post with the same type of generalizations and you get all worked up over it becaus instead of having a nice tea time convo about how red states are "shit holes" I reverse it to the city.

Do you realize how incoherent this is?

1) I'm not emotional or offended, I just think your countering my arguments that are based on statistical evidence with your personal little anecdotes is lame. If you want to debate my point, debate it in the manner subego did.

2) Your timing couldn't be worse to call me unreasonable after your weird tirades about me where you made several ridiculous assumptions about me, and your lousy sample-size challenged arguments

3) For the last time (hopefully), I was not making generalizations, I was making an argument based on statistical evidence.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Semantics.
All those reasons just happen to cluster in every single American city. This isn't a coincidence.

There is commonality for the cause of poverty not just in every single American city, but every city on this planet. People putting on blinders is one variable of many.

[subego]

I don't understand why people putting on blinders is a more important variable to discuss in this context than say, how many people you're trying to stuff in how small an area.