"Never Worked a Day in My Life": Urban Myth?


Off-Topic Discussions

701 to 750 of 754 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Sebastian wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
I'm all for helping people in need. However, when I run into people actually using the system, it is more often that they are not in true need. Those in true need, actually, are less often on the system because they have not learned how to game it. It's a jacked-up way to do things.
And I'm telling you that your proposal will impact those who need the help more than those who "game the system" as you call it - negatively impact them, to the point of suicide for many.

Based on what? DM Barcas has come in with his own first-hand experience, which has been, correctly identified as anecdotal and of limited value in making policy determinations, but your statement that his vague changes will result in suicides is even less supported.

Since no such policy has been introduced in the US I obviously can't provide any statistics (nor can anyone provide such information to the contrary, that's a given).

What I can give, though, is examples of how hard hit people are by some of his first suggestions, namely the tightening of the "application" process, since that's most likely going to be similar to what we have over here (meaning lots of doctor/psychiatrist documentation, several work ability testing procedures etc.). Add to that the anguish many people go through when they are given SSI (or our equivalent) with a re-testing time limit.
So if you institute that on all, then it's, to me, a rather logical step to see that this will increase the suffering of many people with mental illness, resulting in an increase in suicide because they simply can't handle the increased pressure, insecurity and expectations.
Plus the anecdotal evidence of my own situation (I'm not suicidal, but I can certainly feel the uncertainty of having to have my situation re-evaluated in less than two years - that same uncertainty must be even more excruciating for people who are even more sick than me).
If you want some kind of evidence, I guess one can look at suicides caused by lack of insurance and thus the ability to pay/sustain a life worth living.

The Exchange

I think one of my biggest issues with welfare is it spread this notion that we NEED the government to take care of us instead of learning to care for ourselves. No one stresses gardening, hunting, making things for ourselves. It just pushes to go buy what you want and feed the corporations that push for more tax dollars through public assistance. controlling welfare also angers the corps that make big profits off of it.
America need more self reliance, more ability to care for ourselves not only daily but when TSHTF emergencies like Katrina.


Andrew R wrote:
No one stresses gardening, hunting, making things for ourselves.

What the hell are you going to hunt in NYC? Rats? Cockroaches?

Where are you going to garden in your 10th floor apartment?

We aren't living in the 19th century. The vast majority of the population lives in or around urban areas. They can't just walk out into the woods and hunt or clear some land and start a farm.

Sure, there's rural poverty as well. Gardening and hunting can help there. If you're rural enough. A lot of farm country doesn't have much hunting available.
Plus, if we tried to support even a small fraction of our population by hunting, there'd be no game left very quickly.


Andrew R wrote:
I think one of my biggest issues with welfare is it spread this notion that we NEED the government to take care of us instead of learning to care for ourselves. No one stresses gardening, hunting, making things for ourselves.

Yeah, there are some very good reasons for that. While new york state may for example, have more deer than people, they're all kind of hanging out in the places that people aren't.

In short if you're trying to feed yourself by hunting in downtown Manhattan you're kinda out of luck.

I would be amazed if your hunting wasn't relying directly or indirectly on public property and the government regulated hunting seasons as well. Unregulated subsistence hunting with 300 million people= extinct critters.


This does bring me back to something I was thinking about earlier, but never got fully formed.

If you look at US history, it's easy to think we never had government welfare until recently, 1940s or so, when FDR instituted the modern welfare state.
But is that really true? It's certainly when most of the programs we know today or their predecessors got started.

If you look back further though, while there were some programs they were on a much smaller scale. What we had instead, for much of our history, was the safety valve of the frontier. If things got to bad back home, you could always light out for the territories. And if you couldn't, others would, leaving space for you to work.
Although that wasn't strictly welfare, it was certainly government supported much of the time. Especially with the 19th century Indian Wars, but even earlier, military force was used to push Native Americans off their lands and open them for settlers. It may not be welfare, but if was certainly the period equivalent of a federal jobs program. Redistributing land, if you will.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
No one stresses gardening, hunting, making things for ourselves.

What the hell are you going to hunt in NYC? Rats? Cockroaches?

Where are you going to garden in your 10th floor apartment?

We aren't living in the 19th century. The vast majority of the population lives in or around urban areas. They can't just walk out into the woods and hunt or clear some land and start a farm.

Sure, there's rural poverty as well. Gardening and hunting can help there. If you're rural enough. A lot of farm country doesn't have much hunting available.
Plus, if we tried to support even a small fraction of our population by hunting, there'd be no game left very quickly.

Funny, around here backyard gardens are becoming far more common and several cities are allowing backyard chicken farming. IN the cities. Larger farming operations are springing up in detroit and until 2002 i believe it was LA had a significant farm on unused land. Of course many of these are being done by immigrants that don't want welfare

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I think one of my biggest issues with welfare is it spread this notion that we NEED the government to take care of us instead of learning to care for ourselves. No one stresses gardening, hunting, making things for ourselves.

Yeah, there are some very good reasons for that. While new york state may for example, have more deer than people, they're all kind of hanging out in the places that people aren't.

In short if you're trying to feed yourself by hunting in downtown Manhattan you're kinda out of luck.

I would be amazed if your hunting wasn't relying directly or indirectly on public property and the government regulated hunting seasons as well. Unregulated subsistence hunting with 300 million people= extinct critters.

One reason i think big cities are insane, they are unsustainable. ALL are one bad day from self destruction. I grew up rural and i HATE living in a city apartment. Hunting for most in my area is removing "pest" deer from private farmlands.


We actually do have recertification. The programs vary in requirements and timetables, and generally do them separately. The timetable for recertifcation, depending on the program and the state, ranges usually from 1 to 7 years. We haven't had mass suicides yet in any state, regardless of their recertification policies.

In fact, the UK just basically eliminated one entire level of disability pension (the lowest level, of those considered "moderate") and effectively eliminated a third of the people on it. There haven't been mass suicides there either.

It's an inefficient process. A centralized qualification/recertification/distribution setup would be considerably more efficient. The individual programs in a few states have shown that consistent recertification has actually helped get people off welfare and back to the workforce faster.


Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
No one stresses gardening, hunting, making things for ourselves.

What the hell are you going to hunt in NYC? Rats? Cockroaches?

Where are you going to garden in your 10th floor apartment?

We aren't living in the 19th century. The vast majority of the population lives in or around urban areas. They can't just walk out into the woods and hunt or clear some land and start a farm.

Sure, there's rural poverty as well. Gardening and hunting can help there. If you're rural enough. A lot of farm country doesn't have much hunting available.
Plus, if we tried to support even a small fraction of our population by hunting, there'd be no game left very quickly.

Funny, around here backyard gardens are becoming far more common and several cities are allowing backyard chicken farming. IN the cities. Larger farming operations are springing up in detroit and until 2002 i believe it was LA had a significant farm on unused land. Of course many of these are being done by immigrants that don't want welfare

And how many people in cities on welfare have backyards?

Don't get me wrong, I think that the urban gardening movement is a great thing, but it's not a substitute.


Andrew R wrote:
One reason i think big cities are insane, they are unsustainable. ALL are one bad day from self destruction. I grew up rural and i HATE living in a city apartment. Hunting for most in my area is removing "pest" deer from private farmlands.

Well here's the thing, you can't just be for the freedom of all people to live your life any more than you can be for the freedom of speech to say things that you agree with. Some people have jobs that require (or at least are a hell of a lot easier) with a large population base. Some people live in cities and, oddly enough, they want things set up so they get to live that way. Just like you probably wouldn't like folks buying up all the woods where you want to hunt and tacking up no trespassing signs.

We KNOW what you're asking for doesn't work. At its most extreme its how the native Americans were living before the europeans showed up. What happens then is that an organized society breeds technicaly innovation that let them show up and either slaughter you or replace you.

As for laisez fair capitalism we KNOW how that works: the rivers get polluted, species go extinct left and right, a small number of people rise very high to the top and make things suck for everyone under them.. usually with the governments help.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:
Mine are pulled from a policy paper that I did last year.

Was that the "harass famous people because of penis size issues" policy paper, or the "taze everyone who questions whether you actually have a right to harass them" policy? Or maybe the "make a bunch of crap up so you can arrest someone for doing something legal, but that you don't like" policy paper?

HPD seems to spend quite a bit of time doing both these days.


Andrew R wrote:
Funny, around here backyard gardens are becoming far more common and several cities are allowing backyard chicken farming. IN the cities. Larger farming operations are springing up in detroit and until 2002 i believe it was LA had a significant farm on unused land. Of course many of these are being done by immigrants that don't want welfare

Detroit is an appalling example. They lost so many people with the huge drop in their employment base -- due to GM's bankruptcy and other near-misses -- that they don't really have a choice. It's either return huge swaths of the city to nature/parks/farms/whatev, or else leave tons of abandoned buildings to serve as habitat for all sorts of pests (human and otherwise). I think that most people would see a city's economic collapse as an undesirable thing.


Andrew R: i fell like dealing with your position is like playing whackamole with a Jello cube. You bring up something, its shot down, your position slides away and focuses on something else.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R: i fell like dealing with your position is like playing whackamole with a Jello cube. You bring up something, its shot down, your position slides away and focuses on something else.

Precisely why I don't recommend Whack-a-Mole... ;)


thejeff wrote:
Vikingchris wrote:


Where in the US can I get $200 for my blood?

Multiple pheresis sessions. An hour or two hooked up to a machine that filters out the plasma and returns the red blood cells to you.

AFAIK, they don't pay for it around here. The idea skeeves me out a bit, but I guess they've got good tests for keeping dangerous stuff out of the blood supply these days.

Thats why I asked WHERE they do it. When I give plasma they dont give me any money in San Diego. So, I am wondering where they do.


Vikingchris wrote:


Thats why I asked WHERE they do it. When I give plasma they dont give me any money in San Diego. So, I am wondering where they do.

They're usually private companies, medical research and the like. At least from my experience, though my town is a bit of a biotech hub.

Red Cross sure as s#*+ don't pay.


Andrew,

Where can I get paid to donate plasma?

Thanks,
Chris


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Omaha, NE has/had a place called Plasma Alliance. They used the stuff they took for research. That's why they paid out. Red Cross doesn't pay for donations.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Omaha, NE has/had a place called Plasma Alliance. They used the stuff they took for research. That's why they paid out. Red Cross doesn't pay for donations.

This.

There is a place here in Madison literally across the street from the community/tech college. They advertise about $35/donation. They will extract from a "donor" twice a week I believe.

I've thought about it before. I'm pretty poor at the moment (back to school and all that).


Andrew R wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I think one of my biggest issues with welfare is it spread this notion that we NEED the government to take care of us instead of learning to care for ourselves. No one stresses gardening, hunting, making things for ourselves.

Yeah, there are some very good reasons for that. While new york state may for example, have more deer than people, they're all kind of hanging out in the places that people aren't.

In short if you're trying to feed yourself by hunting in downtown Manhattan you're kinda out of luck.

I would be amazed if your hunting wasn't relying directly or indirectly on public property and the government regulated hunting seasons as well. Unregulated subsistence hunting with 300 million people= extinct critters.

One reason i think big cities are insane, they are unsustainable. ALL are one bad day from self destruction. I grew up rural and i HATE living in a city apartment. Hunting for most in my area is removing "pest" deer from private farmlands.

Interesting side note, because I just watched the TED talk, so it's in my head.

Cities actually become more efficient the larger they are, in terms of infrastructure. Roads, sewers, police, electricity, hospitals, etc, grow at a slower rate than the population.

Example, lets say you need 5 miles of road for a population of 100 people. If you increase the population to 200, you're going to need another 4 miles of road. It's something like a 15% efficiency for such things.

You also get greater than 1:1 return on a lot of other stuff, like income, innovation and crime. These things increase 15% faster than the population, and they're all a result of culture.

Cities expand our culture and the bigger they are, the less infrastructure is required per capita.

They're starting to study how cities work, what kind of ideas and rules govern their growth and operation (independent of which country they exist in). There isn't really a whole lot of scientific theory about cities, but they're learning that a lot of concepts from biology apply, though sometimes in unusual or unexpected ways.


I dated a guy once who would pay for each semester of college by spending two weeks of each break in a drug study. He got paid $2,000 for being on an experimental blood pressure medicine for 10 days.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
One reason i think big cities are insane, they are unsustainable. ALL are one bad day from self destruction. I grew up rural and i HATE living in a city apartment. Hunting for most in my area is removing "pest" deer from private farmlands.

Well here's the thing, you can't just be for the freedom of all people to live your life any more than you can be for the freedom of speech to say things that you agree with. Some people have jobs that require (or at least are a hell of a lot easier) with a large population base. Some people live in cities and, oddly enough, they want things set up so they get to live that way. Just like you probably wouldn't like folks buying up all the woods where you want to hunt and tacking up no trespassing signs.

We KNOW what you're asking for doesn't work. At its most extreme its how the native Americans were living before the europeans showed up. What happens then is that an organized society breeds technicaly innovation that let them show up and either slaughter you or replace you.

As for laisez fair capitalism we KNOW how that works: the rivers get polluted, species go extinct left and right, a small number of people rise very high to the top and make things suck for everyone under them.. usually with the governments help.

I don't care how people live beyond following the law and taking care of themselves. Too many city folks fail at least one of those, and ends up costing people like me. Funny enough you accuse me of telling them how to live but the laws created to control the stupid among them end up forcing me to live by their ways

It would not hurt anything to have more community garden space among the blight of the modern urban world. No one is saying go live in a tipi with no city, i am saying have some means of sustainability within cities. do not grow a city so large that it is impossible to reach a grocery store from many of the residential areas. backyard/ rooftop gardens are an excellent way of bringing benefits of green into the city as well as supplemental food. Much can be done without going native here

The Exchange

Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I think one of my biggest issues with welfare is it spread this notion that we NEED the government to take care of us instead of learning to care for ourselves. No one stresses gardening, hunting, making things for ourselves.

Yeah, there are some very good reasons for that. While new york state may for example, have more deer than people, they're all kind of hanging out in the places that people aren't.

In short if you're trying to feed yourself by hunting in downtown Manhattan you're kinda out of luck.

I would be amazed if your hunting wasn't relying directly or indirectly on public property and the government regulated hunting seasons as well. Unregulated subsistence hunting with 300 million people= extinct critters.

One reason i think big cities are insane, they are unsustainable. ALL are one bad day from self destruction. I grew up rural and i HATE living in a city apartment. Hunting for most in my area is removing "pest" deer from private farmlands.

Interesting side note, because I just watched the TED talk, so it's in my head.

Cities actually become more efficient the larger they are, in terms of infrastructure. Roads, sewers, police, electricity, hospitals, etc, grow at a slower rate than the population.

Example, lets say you need 5 miles of road for a population of 100 people. If you increase the population to 200, you're going to need another 4 miles of road. It's something like a 15% efficiency for such things.

You also get greater than 1:1 return on a lot of other stuff, like income, innovation and crime. These things increase 15% faster than the population, and they're all a result of culture.

Cities expand our culture and the bigger they are, the less infrastructure is required per capita.

They're starting to study how cities work, what kind of ideas and rules govern their growth and operation (independent of which country they exist in). There isn't really a whole lot of...

And all of that city is completely reliant on masses of farmland, etc outside of it to be produced and shipped in and is done for without constant influx of material. It works for some, is a breeding ground for crime and poverty for many and i for one would rather avoid it.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R: i fell like dealing with your position is like playing whackamole with a Jello cube. You bring up something, its shot down, your position slides away and focuses on something else.

You think you shoot it down and this topic has SO many angles that need to be tackled to ever have hope of positive change. Keeping with the same failed and growing policies will get us no where but deeper in the hole. But so many aspect of policy and culture need change for a solution. As it stands the problem will grow until a collapse.

The Exchange

meatrace wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Omaha, NE has/had a place called Plasma Alliance. They used the stuff they took for research. That's why they paid out. Red Cross doesn't pay for donations.

This.

There is a place here in Madison literally across the street from the community/tech college. They advertise about $35/donation. They will extract from a "donor" twice a week I believe.

I've thought about it before. I'm pretty poor at the moment (back to school and all that).

If not for the meds i would, that's good money for the time invested. That's about the going rate here in MI


Andrew R wrote:
It would not hurt anything to have more community garden space among the blight of the modern urban world. No one is saying go live in a tipi with no city, i am saying have some means of sustainability within cities. do not grow a city so large that it is impossible to reach a grocery store from many of the residential areas.

That's not a problem of the city being too large, that's either bad city planning or a problem of urban poverty. Either zoning rules don't allow enough mixed retail/residential space or, more often, the big chains don't think it'll be profitable to put a grocery store in the inner city.

More generally cities are not sustainable. They've always relied on shipping in food, fuel, and other necessities from outside. If they were spread out enough to include enough farmland to support them, they wouldn't be cities, they'd be rural. Again, this goes back to the earliest urban areas.

Using what space there is for community gardens and the like is a great thing. We definitely need more of it, but it's always going to be a minor part of the urban supply chain.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It would not hurt anything to have more community garden space among the blight of the modern urban world. No one is saying go live in a tipi with no city, i am saying have some means of sustainability within cities. do not grow a city so large that it is impossible to reach a grocery store from many of the residential areas.

That's not a problem of the city being too large, that's either bad city planning or a problem of urban poverty. Either zoning rules don't allow enough mixed retail/residential space or, more often, the big chains don't think it'll be profitable to put a grocery store in the inner city.

More generally cities are not sustainable. They've always relied on shipping in food, fuel, and other necessities from outside. If they were spread out enough to include enough farmland to support them, they wouldn't be cities, they'd be rural. Again, this goes back to the earliest urban areas.

Using what space there is for community gardens and the like is a great thing. We definitely need more of it, but it's always going to be a minor part of the urban supply chain.

Too often stores don't want to risk the crime stats even if there is money to be made.

Lack of preparation for supply shortage is a huge problem in cities even among many of the well off and businesses. Too many are far to comfy to think about what can happen if that supply is cut off for a day or two even. It is scary how fast those places can go crazy in a fight for resources. Cities do not need to be fully self sufficient but more of the people need to evaluate what they can do to be more so.

I think backyard farming could have a much bigger place in our cities if they do not have ass backward laws to prevent them. It is amazing how much food you can get out of a small garden and a few chickens.


Andrew R wrote:
Too often stores don't want to risk the crime stats even if there is money to be made.

As far as big business is concerned, risk of crime is just another factor in the calculation of whether they'll make money.


I don't know whether to invite you to ny or hope you never see it save on tv. Our infrastructure is far, far from perfect(lord knows there's room do improvement at all levels), but we have weathered numerous bad days an will proudly weather many more.


More trying to nail jello to a wall than playing whack a mole. I am starting to think there's no consensus that can be reached here, Andrews mind is made up.

Andrew R wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I think one of my biggest issues with welfare is it spread this notion that we NEED the government to take care of us instead of learning to care for ourselves. No one stresses gardening, hunting, making things for ourselves.

Yeah, there are some very good reasons for that. While new york state may for example, have more deer than people, they're all kind of hanging out in the places that people aren't.

In short if you're trying to feed yourself by hunting in downtown Manhattan you're kinda out of luck.

I would be amazed if your hunting wasn't relying directly or indirectly on public property and the government regulated hunting seasons as well. Unregulated subsistence hunting with 300 million people= extinct critters.

One reason i think big cities are insane, they are unsustainable. ALL are one bad day from self destruction. I grew up rural and i HATE living in a city apartment. Hunting for most in my area is removing "pest" deer from private farmlands.

Interesting side note, because I just watched the TED talk, so it's in my head.

Cities actually become more efficient the larger they are, in terms of infrastructure. Roads, sewers, police, electricity, hospitals, etc, grow at a slower rate than the population.

Example, lets say you need 5 miles of road for a population of 100 people. If you increase the population to 200, you're going to need another 4 miles of road. It's something like a 15% efficiency for such things.

You also get greater than 1:1 return on a lot of other stuff, like income, innovation and crime. These things increase 15% faster than the population, and they're all a result of culture.

Cities expand our culture and the bigger they are, the less infrastructure is required per capita.

They're starting to study how cities work, what kind of ideas and rules govern their growth and operation (independent of which country they exist in). There isn't

...


No offense, FH, but, really? You think so?

The last person with an "open mind" in here was the OP. And I'm not even sure about her/him (sorry, I forget who it was!).


And I was wondering, Citizen R, where you live. Not city and state, but where on the city--town--boonies scale do you live and work?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Keep in mind on the donating plasma thing, they have pretty strict rules for who can or cannot donate. No body piercings, no tattoos, and they will grill you about your sex life and habits.
You have to go out of your way to convince them you're clean before they will take your plasma.


houstonderek wrote:

Was that the "harass famous people because of penis size issues" policy paper, or the "taze everyone who questions whether you actually have a right to harass them" policy? Or maybe the "make a bunch of crap up so you can arrest someone for doing something legal, but that you don't like" policy paper?

HPD seems to spend quite a bit of time doing both these days.

I assume you are talking about Adrian Peterson's recent arrest

. Now, I have no firsthand knowledge of the officers, Peterson, or their respective genitals. However, I do know how extra jobs work: your goal is to get through them with as little actual work as possible. Deciding to arrest someone is a pain in the neck. It's not like you get paid more. What is more likely - that multiple officers and witnesses decided to engage in a conspiracy to frame this guy, or that someone at a bar at 2 am decided to get stupid?

I don't know if you have a specific complaint about Tazers. It's a huge hassle to Taze anyone. Vast, unending paperwork. If you Taze somebody, you've got to be prepared to go through the wringer. He'll, if you lose a cartridge, be prepared to go through a huge IAD investigation.

For the last one, I can only assume that you mean the woman who claimed that she was arrested for advertising a speed trap. That doesn't ring true to me simply because of how much of a pain it is to arrest a female in that part of town. If you are running a speed trap, you're in Traffic Division. It's not worth it to lose two or three hours for a Class C arrest without warrants. Additionally, no one has to make anything up to arrest just about anyone. There are a lot of laws on the books, and nearly all of them are arrestable offenses. All one would have to do is decide not to extend any leniency

You might notice a theme here. It's not worth it to do a lot of the things that you say.


DM Barcas wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Was that the "harass famous people because of penis size issues" policy paper, or the "taze everyone who questions whether you actually have a right to harass them" policy? Or maybe the "make a bunch of crap up so you can arrest someone for doing something legal, but that you don't like" policy paper?

HPD seems to spend quite a bit of time doing both these days.

I assume you are talking about Adrian Peterson's recent arrest

. Now, I have no firsthand knowledge of the officers, Peterson, or their respective genitals. However, I do know how extra jobs work: your goal is to get through them with as little actual work as possible. Deciding to arrest someone is a pain in the neck. It's not like you get paid more. What is more likely - that multiple officers and witnesses decided to engage in a conspiracy to frame this guy, or that someone at a bar at 2 am decided to get stupid?

I don't know if you have a specific complaint about Tazers. It's a huge hassle to Taze anyone. Vast, unending paperwork. If you Taze somebody, you've got to be prepared to go through the wringer. He'll, if you lose a cartridge, be prepared to go through a huge IAD investigation.

For the last one, I can only assume that you mean the woman who claimed that she was arrested for advertising a speed trap. That doesn't ring true to me simply because of how much of a pain it is to arrest a female in that part of town. If you are running a speed trap, you're in Traffic Division. It's not worth it to lose two or three hours for a Class C arrest without warrants. Additionally, no one has to make anything up to arrest just about anyone. There are a lot of laws on the books, and nearly all of them are arrestable offenses. All one would have to do is decide not to extend any leniency

You might notice a theme here. It's not worth it to do a lot of the things that you say.

And yet somehow they keep happening. I don't know about these specific cases, but there are plenty of documented cases of police abuse of various kinds. In some cases with trials and verdicts to support it.

It's become easier to catch with more video easily available, both from ubiquitous cell phones and official police video. That's in fact why the police videotape so much now. Both so that they can stop abuse internally and so they've got evidence it didn't happen.

Just dismissing police abuse on the grounds that it's just not worth it for the police to do is ludicrous. People, including police, do a lot of stupid things that it doesn't seem like they should.


Andrew R wrote:
I don't care how people live beyond following the law and taking care of themselves. Too many city folks fail at least one of those and ends up costing people like me.

Oh malarky, you know just as well as i do there's a lot of people collecting government checks from trailers out in the boondocks as well as tenement slums.

Quote:
Funny enough you accuse me of telling them how to live but the laws created to control the stupid among them end up forcing me to live by their ways

Some of the laws are for the stupid among them, some of them is for the stupid among you, and some of them are because we have to live together and you can't have everyone doing their own thing all the time. Shooting a carrier pigeon or a deer wasn't a problem. EVERYONE shooting a carrier pigeon or a deer was. One person letting their cattle take a dump in the water supply isn't a problem: EVERYONE doing it is.

Quote:
It would not hurt anything to have more community garden space among the blight of the modern urban world.

Where do you put them? You physically do not have enough space to put enough to make more than a bandaid.

Quote:
No one is saying go live in a tipi with no city, i am saying have some means of sustainability within cities. do not grow a city so large that it is impossible to reach a grocery store from many of the residential areas.

See, this is why i say its like swinging at jello. You've moved from one idea of being "dependent" ie, people have to pay for me being bad, to another idea of dependent "people have to pay other people for all their stuff" being bad. You're whining like an old man about a system of specialization that's been in place since two thousand BC.

You're also making some appeal to how things 'should be' based on ... what exactly?

backyard/ rooftop gardens are an excellent way of bringing benefits of green into the city as well as supplemental food. Much can be done without going native here

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Country mouse agrees: cities are scary.


Sebastian wrote:
Country mouse agrees: cities are scary.

You mean... the streets aren't really paved with cheese?

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Country mouse agrees: cities are scary.
You mean... the streets aren't really paved with cheese?

Not only that, the people who live there are strange and alien!!!

Also, since it's sure to be a sticking point, I feel obligated to point out that I grew up in a small town of 8,000 people prior to moving to the 7th or 8th largest city in the country. Some people might say that this provides me with a similarly dual perspective on rural/city as it does on poverty/affluance, but I'd like to remind everyone that people who have never lived in a big city understand how it works to a far greater degree than those who have. As everyone who's only visited a city on vacation or driven through one can attest, cities are chock full of arable land, wild animals to hunt, fresh water, and, of course, the degenerate slack-jawed inhabitants who squander the abundant and readily available resources in favor of injecting cocaine straight into their genitals and sexing hookers all day long.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

All the better reason to burn them all down! We'd be better off without them.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Country mouse agrees: cities are scary.
You mean... the streets aren't really paved with cheese?

And there are cats Fiefel.


Sebastian wrote:
As everyone who's only visited a city on vacation or driven through one can attest, cities are chock full of arable land, wild animals to hunt, fresh water, and, of course, the degenerate slack-jawed inhabitants who squander the abundant and readily available resources in favor of injecting cocaine straight into their genitals and sexing hookers all day long.

Man, I live in the wrong city.


Urban Decadence: The Musical Interlude

NSFW and, uh, not terribly PC, either.


Since I never stay for extended periods of time in all the nameless podunk towns and trailer park venues of Texas, Louisiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma, I obviously am in an excellent position to state categorically that there is no meth problem away from the big cities, and no crime, either. And all the people I don't meet in these places out in the middle of nowhere are morally-upstandin', hard-workin', bootstrap-pullin' proud folks. Certainly none of them have stolen everything out of the truck, cut the fence on a site to steal everything inside, fired shots randomly in my direction while poaching out of season, or just straight-up pulled pistols on me before, which is sure a relief.

P.S. Feel free to interpret some or all of that as sarcasm; I won't mind.
P.P.S. Anecdotes. Gotta love 'em.


Nepherti wrote:
I dated a guy once who would pay for each semester of college by spending two weeks of each break in a drug study. He got paid $2,000 for being on an experimental blood pressure medicine for 10 days.

$2000 would about pay for my books for a year, and maybe a month of rent, let alone the extra 50K it cost me for tuition. Then again, I went to a private school. State schools will only run you ~25K a year, with about the same for books. But go ahead and try to pay that with experiments that risk your long term health. Thats a great way to build up our nation's future.


@Caineach: Well, WVU at the time only cost about $3,000/semester for instate tuition. He was also a Resident Assistant in the dorms, which paid room and board, and he was eligible for a WV Higher Education Grant and a Pell Grant, which covered what the drug study didn't. I didn't like him doing them, but he was determined not to take a loan.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian wrote:
... and, of course, the degenerate slack-jawed inhabitants who squander the abundant and readily available resources in favor of injecting cocaine straight into their genitals and sexing hookers all day long.

I didn't realize this post was autobiographical...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know of several people that do this, live without doing any proper work ever. A lot of business owners, especially those that inherit business, as well as for example the royal family of my country (Sweden).


Now of course, I don't have any issues with people living without working, I think it's a good thing if people can spend their time at what they want and still survive. The issue are the people who don't work but still get rich as hell; mainly people with rich parents.

701 to 750 of 754 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / "Never Worked a Day in My Life": Urban Myth? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.