David Suzuki calls Calgary an "ecological disaster"

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Muta

No, they fault the city for allowing this to happen because of a lack of urban planning policy in tune with 21st century growth, leading to all kinds of whopping infrastructure, cultural and environmental problems as a result.

This is the part that gets my goat.

If I have 500k to spend on a house, who is the sity or anyone else to tell me what's the best use of that for my interests, values, and needs.

The 'whopping' problems are simply different problems. It's all choices. And they should be mine to make.

No one should be so arrogant to think they have all the answers and can make choices for everyone else. Unless they are a church. And then we can mock them for immunization.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Daradon

You're saying preaching energy conservation should require you don't get paid?

I don't think he would have done it if he didn't agree with the message or the company. Yes Enmax is big electricy, but they are growing (slowly) in the right direction, and it was a message that needed to get out anyway.

More people are probably going to get that message or info through their electricity company than through going to his lectures.

Fact remains he got paid by a company that sells coal fired electricity. This was an effort by Enmax to make themselves look greener than they actually are.

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by KTown

My taking on this is if they force us all to move into apartments and crowd us in, isn't that telling us where to live and how to live, isn't that a form of communism?

I'll tell you why I love the suburbs.

A) I hate neighbours, thats why I am moving to an acreage eventually, living in the suburbs minimizes my chance of running into stupid people often..
B) I don't need to pay 400 dollars in condo fees to have someone shovel the walkway out front once every two weeks in the winter, I also don't need to pay for bozo the clown in the complex that likes to keep his window open when its -40 and than crank the heat while he pigs out on chips and sits there in shorts without a shirt on.
C) I got a decent backyard, and its fenced off. I can allow my kid to play in the backyard keep it locked and not worry about them as much. I can still get my stuff done around the house. If I am in a condo I have to go to the park with them, I can't say that I always have the time.
D) I like living in a place thats 2000 square feet and not 800 square feet to raise my children. Sometimes I need my own space.
E) I hate big crowds
F) I like working outside in the summer on the week-end in my yard. I like growing fresh ORGANIC veggies instead of buying crap in the stores in the summer.
G) I work downtown and I can tell you that by the end of the day I am ready to get home and get out downtown. I couldn't imagine working there and living there, I'd feel like I am trapped.


I can go on but I won't I will just get too angry.

^^^^I agree

I work downtown too and I literally can't stand it.. Every time I walk around down there I can do nothing but shake my head.

I don't get what the love fest is for downtown and the kensington type areas. Is it because people feel safer in the heard of people down there, or is it because people are really concerned about their environmental foot print. Are people that far removed from actual living, they have to fill it up with the constant buzz of people and events to scrape out some kinda of meaning.

I like my neighbours, and the fact they live 100ft away...I like my quite street that nobody else drives on but the people on our street. I like the fact my kid drags his hockey net into the street and shouts CAR ever 10 min.... I love the fact my boy will leave his bike and helmet where he jumped off the bike... I really love the fact its still there when he comes back. Half the time I don't lock my door.. When I drive home from downtown, I don't see a brown fog encasing my house.

I'd argue that high density is not as DRAMATICALLY more energy efficient as people like to make out. I'd say people would produce about the same ammount of waste.. consume similar amounts of electricity, gas. Granted there would be more fuel consumed in a suburban area, but if people were't so BENT on putting everything in the core people could live closer to work.

I also have a couple thousand SF of roof I could turn into an electricty generating operation should I so desire... do that in a 27 story condo unit.. My house was built using the newest window technology, high efficiancy appliances and materials. Likely a sight bettter then a 60 year old condo complex.

I'm not saying urban living is wrong, but I am saying that people arguing for the quality of life and enviromental utopian downtown core, have to take a look around and grab onto some reality.. David Suzuki doesn't live in a condo, and I bet if you asked him, he rather enjoys his "oasis"....I bet he has solar pannels too

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

This is the part that gets my goat.

If I have 500k to spend on a house, who is the sity or anyone else to tell me what's the best use of that for my interests, values, and needs.

The 'whopping' problems are simply different problems. It's all choices. And they should be mine to make.

No one should be so arrogant to think they have all the answers and can make choices for everyone else. Unless they are a church. And then we can mock them for immunization.

No one is telling you what's best for your 'needs'. Nobody.

It is hoped, though, that one makes the proper choices through proper research in deciding where to live; one should suffer the consequences of deciding where exactly that location is. Calgary is a roads-based city, and and thus choosing to live in outlying areas comes with a heavy price financially and environmentally. Choosing to live that far out also contributes to the steady rise in municipal taxation, mainly from the simple reason that resources and infrastructure need to be continually expanded outward.

No one is saying they have all the answers; but when urban sprawl is a serious problem in today's environmental and energy based world, something has to give. The decision to expand further and further outwards is unsustainable in a number of ways. What IS arrogant, however, is choosing to ignore this because you have a fundamental right to live that far out. No one is denying that you do; that doesn't make your decision right, however.

The choice to live in areas that continue to weigh heavy on resources and infrastructure will continue to increase in becoming an unpopular one.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Muta

No one is telling you what's best for your 'needs'. Nobody.

It would certainly seem that way when people are advocating to stop building suburban communities which people want and replace them with high density housing that they don't want.

It may not be "forced" but when the houses that people want are no longer be built and the only option is to go to the new high density, inner city apartments it would appear to be pretty damn close to forcing them.

It is hoped, though, that one makes the proper choices through proper research in deciding where to live; one should suffer the consequences of deciding where exactly that location is. Calgary is a roads-based city, and and thus choosing to live in outlying areas comes with a heavy price financially and environmentally. Choosing to live that far out also contributes to the steady rise in municipal taxation, mainly from the simple reason that resources and infrastructure need to be continually expanded outward.

Proper choices based on what your vision of proper is?

If people have to suffer these terrible prices and yet continually move out to these communities it would appear that they are making the proper choices and that even with all the negative side-effects suburban living is still the better choice than inner city living.

No one is saying they have all the answers; but when urban sprawl is a serious problem in today's environmental and energy based world, something has to give.

Urban sprawl seems to be working just fine now. Energy prices don't seem to be stopping people., the environment is doing just fine as well.

What IS arrogant, however, is choosing to ignore this because you have a fundamental right to live that far out. No one is denying that you do; that doesn't make your decision right, however.

Just because you don't like people living outside the core doesn't make your decision right.

What I find arrogant is the position that your opinions are right and that people living in the suburbs obviously just ignore everything that is "important."

The choice to live in areas that continue to weigh heavy on resources and infrastructure will continue to increase in becoming an unpopular one.

Unpopular with who? The self-righteous inner city folk? David F'ing Suzuki? Not sure that people should base their choices on the opinions of those folks.

These neighborhoods/homes seem to be going up at a pretty good rate so it would seem that they are popular with plenty of people.

When you say that people aren't going to be forced into high density inner city living but we see that they don't want to live in that type of housing I guess I am confused then how they are going to change their minds without some sort of force.

Oil prices have shot up. Environmental whiners are getting more press time and "credibility" than ever and yet people still prefer to live in homes outside the core of the city. Inner city supporters can rail on and on about how terrible it is to live out of the core and that things need to change but so long as the majority still wants those types of housing and lifestyles I don't see how it is the cities job/right to tell them they can't.

Oh thats right they aren't telling them they can't live in those houses they are just making sure that those houses aren't being built for them to live in.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Muta

No one is telling you what's best for your 'needs'. Nobody.

It is hoped, though, that one makes the proper choices through proper research in deciding where to live; one should suffer the consequences of deciding where exactly that location is. Calgary is a roads-based city, and and thus choosing to live in outlying areas comes with a heavy price financially and environmentally. Choosing to live that far out also contributes to the steady rise in municipal taxation, mainly from the simple reason that resources and infrastructure need to be continually expanded outward.

No one is saying they have all the answers; but when urban sprawl is a serious problem in today's environmental and energy based world, something has to give. The decision to expand further and further outwards is unsustainable in a number of ways. What IS arrogant, however, is choosing to ignore this because you have a fundamental right to live that far out. No one is denying that you do; that doesn't make your decision right, however.

The choice to live in areas that continue to weigh heavy on resources and infrastructure will continue to increase in becoming an unpopular one.

It's not arrogant to live where and how you want to live, its called freedom. It's arrogant to assume that the only way to live responsibly for all people is to live in an 800 sq. foot apartment. Maybe if we spent as much effort finding ways to make people's desired choices more 'sustainable', as opposed to trying to ram lifestyle choices down their throats we'd be further ahead towards developing better technologies to solve some of these problems.

[Traditional_Ale]

It would certainly seem that way when people are advocating to stop building suburban communities which people want and replace them with high density housing that they don't want.

Who's people advocating for what? This doesn't make sense. The people advocating stopping the construction of suburban communities in favor of high density housing are the ones that don't want it? What?????

It may not be "forced" but when the houses that people want are no longer be built and the only option is to go to the new high density, inner city apartments it would appear to be pretty damn close to forcing them.

There will always be places for you to live where you can have it exactly as you want. This debate is about the sustainablity (lack thereof) of that life-style as the norm in Calgary. This has moral and ethical implications. Your post seems to be overly dramatic in defending yourself and your choices.

If people have to suffer these terrible prices and yet continually move out to these communities it would appear that they are making the proper choices and that even with all the negative side-effects suburban living is still the better choice than inner city living.

You don't consider your blatant disregard for anything that isn't all about you you you, how it affects you, your bottom line, you this, you that a little bit disconcerting?

We're talking about stewardship for the enviornment in which we live.

Urban sprawl seems to be working just fine now. Energy prices don't seem to be stopping people., the environment is doing just fine as well.

So you're a city planner/engineer, energy producer/broker, AND enviornmentalist all at the same time?

Obviously you make a good living if you think like this, which kind of makes you come across very gluttonous. Take your head out of the sand and stop thinking everyone else is (or should be) exactly like you. I sure as hell don't make as much money as you, so these things you cast off to the wind as trivialities to a lot (most) of us are very real issues.

What I find arrogant is the position that your opinions are right and that people living in the suburbs obviously just ignore everything that is "important."

He didn't say that at all. Everything you said was attacking a position that you invented in your own head. Took half of what he said, distorted it in your own mind to lock in to some very troubling morals, and then attacked him. I call Bulls***.

Unpopular with who? The self-righteous inner city folk? David F'ing Suzuki? Not sure that people should base their choices on the opinions of those folks.

It will become mighty unpopular mighty quick when we're paying so much taxes to try and sustain a beast of a situation that was entirely preventable by being mindful in our planning/development and NOT continually indulging in a bloated sense of entitlement.

These neighborhoods/homes seem to be going up at a pretty good rate so it would seem that they are popular with plenty of people.

Calgary IS a very wasteful and gluttonous place. Doesn't mean you have to choose to participate.

Oil prices have shot up. Environmental whiners are getting more press time and "credibility" than ever and yet people still prefer to live in homes outside the core of the city.

I wonder how many people I see going down the Deerfoot from McKenzie or whatever in their 55,000 SUV that I know for a fact guzzles gas like no tommorow while driving like a maniac (so I know their insurance is insane too) have ever been to Paris, or Tokyo, or anywhere other than their 400 dollar all-inclusive frat parties in Mexico? Or have money for their kids sports or music? Or even just not having financial stress in their life for the sake of nothing other than their health?

What people perfer and what is morally correct are not the same. This insane sense of entitlement will eventually render most things unachieveable because instead of saving up for a trip to Europe, you're paying out your ass in property taxes so a dumptruck can make the 40km trip from the core to get your three bags of garbage.

Inner city supporters can rail on and on about how terrible it is to live out of the core and that things need to change but so long as the majority still wants those types of housing and lifestyles I don't see how it is the cities job/right to tell them they can't.

Because without some tough decisions now about lifestyle in this city, the hard raw economics of a morally repugnant sense of entitlement will eventually crumble everything you seem to think important.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by moon

It may not be "forced" but when the houses that people want are no longer be built and the only option is to go to the new high density, inner city apartments it would appear to be pretty damn close to forcing them.

Holy dramatic, do you really see this happening in Calgary?
Calgary isn't going to run out of suburbs anytime soon, don't worry. All Suzuki and others are advocating are a little balance to bring things under control and sustainability environmentally/financially.
Your way of life is not under threat by the commies!!

[moon]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

There will always be places for you to live where you can have it exactly as you want. This debate is about the sustainablity (lack thereof) of that life-style as the norm in Calgary. This has moral and ethical implications. Your post seems to be overly dramatic in defending yourself and your choices.

Your moral and ethical implications threats seem much more over dramatic then anything I posted.

You don't consider your blatant disregard for anything that isn't all about you you you, how it affects you, your bottom line, you this, you that a little bit disconcerting?

I am not the one proposing restrictions on what type of housing people/developers can build.

I think that people should be free to build houses/live where they want.

Not sure how that makes me selfish.

We're talking about stewardship for the enviornment in which we live.

You are talking about an opinion that you hold. If I don't agree with the opinion it doesn't make me selfish, it means that I have a different opinion.

So you're a city planner/engineer, energy producer/broker, AND enviornmentalist all at the same time?

Yep.

Obviously you make a good living if you think like this, which kind of makes you come across very gluttonous. Take your head out of the sand and stop thinking everyone else is (or should be) exactly like you. I sure as hell don't make as much money as you, so these things you cast off to the wind as trivialities to a lot (most) of us are very real issues.

I am a student with a wife that stays at home with the kids so I doubt that you would consider me making a good living. I also doubt that you make less money than me considering I currently work about 10 hours a week part time.

I don't think anyone should be like me. They should be free to live how they like. Again I am not proposing limiting the type of housing/development that should go up.

If everyone wants to live in high density inner city housing they should be free to do so but it doesn't appear to be the case and there is no reason why the city should take steps to move people towards this if they don't want it.

He didn't say that at all. Everything you said was attacking a position that you invented in your own head. Took half of what he said, distorted it in your own mind to lock in to some very troubling morals, and then attacked him. I call Bulls***.

Wrong. Read the posts in this thread and others. The arrogance on the issue comes across clearly in his posts.

It will become mighty unpopular mighty quick when we're paying so much taxes to try and sustain a beast of a situation that was entirely preventable by being mindful in our planning/development and NOT continually indulging in a bloated sense of entitlement.

Perhaps it will or perhaps like often happens people will find ways to adapt and make it work. Seems like a bit of a bogeyman approach to the situation though considering it is working fine just now.

Doesn't seem to be bothering people in the suburbs now.

Calgary IS a very wasteful and gluttonous place. Doesn't mean you have to choose to participate.

I don't find it that wasteful or gluttonous and don't even live there so I am not sure how much I am contributing to it anyways.

I wonder how many people I see going down the Deerfoot from McKenzie or whatever in their 55,000 SUV that I know for a fact guzzles gas like no tommorow while driving like a maniac (so I know their insurance is insane too) have ever been to Paris, or Tokyo, or anywhere other than their 400 dollar all-inclusive frat parties in Mexico? Or have money for their kids sports or music? Or even just not having financial stress in their life for the sake of nothing other than their health?

What does this have to do with anything?

I have been to Paris numerous times and it just reinforces my opinion that I would never want to live in the inner city if that is what it would like.

My guess is that people driving $55,000 SUV's are more likely to have been to Paris and Tokyo than the average person though. As well they are also likely to have money for their kids sports or music than the people driving a $2,000 Ford Taurus, but who knows its tough to judge people based solely on the vehicle they drive.

What people perfer and what is morally correct are not the same. This insane sense of entitlement will eventually render most things unachieveable because instead of saving up for a trip to Europe, you're paying out your ass in property taxes so a dumptruck can make the 40km trip from the core to get your three bags of garbage.

That has to do with people and their budgets. There are plenty of people in the inner city living in an apartment they can't afford likewise unable to save for Europe because they are too busy buying prenticious crap to keep up with their trendy neighbours and friends.

Living in the suburbs does not automatically render you a shallow, moron unable of properly planning your finances.

Most likely if people have been able to get to a point in their lives that they can afford $55,000 SUV's and nice homes then they also have the intelligence to plan for a trip to Europe if they so want to.

Because without some tough decisions now about lifestyle in this city, the hard raw economics of a morally repugnant sense of entitlement will eventually crumble everything you seem to think important.

They way you braodly paint people with your own bias' and values all the while acting like some morally superior jackass makes me laugh.

You talk to me about being selfish for think that "everyone has to live like I want" and yet constantly through out your own opinions as some sort of moral fact.

The fact is that there are likely just as high a percentage of "gluttonous, wasteful" people in the inner city and plenty of environmental waste and problems as well. However, because that doesn't fit within your arguement you ignore that and paint everyone in the Suburbs as some sort selfish, mornic, evil person who is lucky that they can tie their shows in the morning without the help from the poor, selfless, cultured matyrs living in the inner city.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Holy dramatic, do you really see this happening in Calgary?
Calgary isn't going to run out of suburbs anytime soon, don't worry. All Suzuki and others are advocating are a little balance to bring things under control and sustainability environmentally/financially.
Your way of life is not under threat by the commies!!

I don't think anything is under threat and I don't see it happening at all. I am not saying that there are going to be police rounding folks up and forcing them into concrete slabs. I am saying that the restrictions would not be enforced because people want them to be but because the city would feel that it needs to "force" the issue to create "balance."

Again if people don't want to have this so-called "balance" and it is not being driven by what the public wants then how is there not an element of it being forced on the public.

It doens't have to be the dramatic force that you try to make it out to be but if people don't want it and the city creates it anyways then it certainly doesn't seem that the choice was made "freely."

And why would all those that support the idea care if it was "forced"? Isn't that what you want? The city to step in and "force" the public to have a bit more balance in the development of the city?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by moon

They way you braodly paint people with your own bias' and values all the while acting like some morally superior jackass makes me laugh.

I was going to reply to your post as I thought we were debating. But name calling like that is not cool. So cheers, I'm a jerk spouting off from the mountain and you can go back to feeling good about being wasteful.

Best of luck with school. Hopefully it knocks some sense into you.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I was going to reply to your post as I thought we were debating. But name calling like that is not cool. So cheers, I'm a jerk spouting off from the mountain and you can go back to feeling good about being wasteful.

Best of luck with school. Hopefully it knocks some sense into you.

Name calling??

If that is considered name calling then fine end the debate.

Its awesome you can judge how wasteful a person is from in front of your computer screen.

If the sense it knocks into me is that I need to judge everyone based on what vehicles they drive then I think I will choose to ignore that part of it.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by moon

Urban sprawl seems to be working just fine now. Energy prices don't seem to be stopping people., the environment is doing just fine as well.

Un. Freakin. Believable.

I'm sorry moon, but it's very hard to take your argument seriously after you busted out this gem. Just.... wow. We're talking about arrogance, well.... this is it to the the up-teenth degree.

You may have a right to live out in far-stretching areas; that doesn't make it okay. Just because you choose to exercise a right to live out there, doesn't have any bearing on the moral / ethical implication of the decision you just made.

A huge reason why we're continually building outwards IS because of demand; that is EXACTLY it. People are demanding their white picket fence and 2500 sq. ft. property, and as a result, we have communities so far from the centre of the city you'd have to book a plane ticket just to get there.

THIS IS unsustainable. If there were more demand for inner-city living, you'd see developers developing more condominiums and townhouses - which, by the way, can be designed with great form and functionality to accompany even the most diversified of families. The notion that inner-city living is cramped is overblown. I've lived in the inner-city for 25 years and have never felt 'cramped'. I might not have the acreage that you do, but I don't need one. the only people who really need 'acres' of land are farmers. Other than that, it's all luxury. And an unsustainable luxury, at that, especially with the lifestyle patterns of large numbers of people in this city.

Once there are more inner-city dwellings on the market, prices go down. But people keep demanding houses - and large ones at that, so developers respond to where the money is, and keep building outwards. This is a vicious cycle, and until this mentality is changed, an increase - and a very plausible increase, at that - in inner-city dwellings will never be constructed due to this very old-fashioned mentality. Millions of people around the world - if not billions - don't have the luxury of the lifestyle we have here. If the entire world lived the way we lived - and us, in particular in Calgary, because of our urban sprawl problem - this world would have killed over in every faucet years ago.

Traditional_Ale, thank you for your response. I was going to say almost exactly the same thing.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by moon

Urban sprawl seems to be working just fine now. Energy prices don't seem to be stopping people., the environment is doing just fine as well.

Wow. Just wow.

I can't believe you make an assumption like this. What are you basing this on? The fact that Calgary has less smog than most cities? The fact that we're in the heart of oil country? The fact that a recessive market is going to curb expansion outward (which it won't?)

Please tell the rest of us just how environmentally sound urban sprawl is, I'm keen to know.

It is this kind of attitude - a middle-to-upper class Calgarian with money to burn - that David Suzuki is indirectly referring to to contributing to our ecological disaster.

You seem like the kind of person that will only react to problems after they happen, and in this case, only if Calgary damages the environment significantly will you be concerned. That is a very dangerous line to walk.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by moon

Name calling??

If that is considered name calling then fine end the debate.

Its awesome you can judge how wasteful a person is from in front of your computer screen.

If the sense it knocks into me is that I need to judge everyone based on what vehicles they drive then I think I will choose to ignore that part of it.

I choose to debate with people who know how to. If you re-read my huge post you'll see I do not make any overtures about your character that are not stated in formal english, and then can only be interpreted through the scenarios I speak of.

You making direct overtures about my character based on nothing except me being concious of sociological and enviormental issues, and especially calling me "jack-ass" I think is a very appropriate point to close the debate.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I choose to debate with people who know how to. If you re-read my huge post you'll see I do not make any overtures about your character that are not stated in formal english. Making overtures about my character based on nothing, especially calling me "jack-ass" I think is a very appropriate point to close the debate.

I also fail to see 'arrogance' in my posts, not sure where moon's getting that. I'm just voicing my opinion, much in the same way he's arguing he's allowed to do. If he thinks that's arrogant, I think he's just being overly dramatic and sensitive, which makes him look like he's dodging the real issue.

Him calling you a 'jackass' isn't appropriate either, I agree. That's grasping for straws, and makes him look arrogant in the process.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Muta

No one is telling you what's best for your 'needs'. Nobody.

It is hoped, though, that one makes the proper choices through proper research in deciding where to live; one should suffer the consequences of deciding where exactly that location is. Calgary is a roads-based city, and and thus choosing to live in outlying areas comes with a heavy price financially and environmentally. Choosing to live that far out also contributes to the steady rise in municipal taxation, mainly from the simple reason that resources and infrastructure need to be continually expanded outward.

No one is saying they have all the answers; but when urban sprawl is a serious problem in today's environmental and energy based world, something has to give. The decision to expand further and further outwards is unsustainable in a number of ways. What IS arrogant, however, is choosing to ignore this because you have a fundamental right to live that far out. No one is denying that you do; that doesn't make your decision right, however.

The choice to live in areas that continue to weigh heavy on resources and infrastructure will continue to increase in becoming an unpopular one.

Well we'd probably fundamentally disagree on what is an outlying area, what constitues a 'heavy' burden, and even what is unsustainable. That it contributes to tax issues is pure bunk. Most of that is rhetoric and opinion, not fact.

There's really only three facts that matter. Density, cost, and distance.

Cost is the only bit I control. If someone else says they get to decide dentisty and distance, then effective I have no choice. It's simple.

I would never presume that my choice is the right one - or should be the only one. Thats the difference. Arrogance is assuming that your choice is better than mine for me. Worse, arrogance is city planners assuming they have any hope of predicting the circumstances in 20 or 50 years. Whats their batting average....0? Should they try? Sure. It's a question of degrees.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I choose to debate with people who know how to. If you re-read my huge post you'll see I do not make any overtures about your character that are not stated in formal english, and then can only be interpreted through the scenarios I speak of.

You making direct overtures about my character based on nothing except me being concious of sociological and enviormental issues, and especially calling me "jack-ass" I think is a very appropriate point to close the debate.

I never called you a jackass. I said that they way you were acting in that post was like a jackass.

Either way no big deal if you want to continue or not.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Muta

I also fail to see 'arrogance' in my posts, not sure where moon's getting that. I'm just voicing my opinion, much in the same way he's arguing he's allowed to do. If he thinks that's arrogant, I think he's just being overly dramatic and sensitive, which makes him look like he's dodging the real issue.

Its an opinion. Much like the opinion that you made in regards to the your view of the arrogance of people on the other side of the argument. Not sure how it is over dramatic or sensitive. I wasn't exactly making it out that you were some sort of evil person. But people do seem to like to use the word dramatic in this thread to describe some pretty mundane things.

It was also one sentence out of a ton that I have said in this thread so not sure how you consider it dodging the issue.

Him calling you a 'jackass' isn't appropriate either, I agree. That's grasping for straws, and makes him look arrogant in the process.

Calling me arrogant seems a little dramatic and sensitive in my view.

Again didn't call him a jackass I felt that him making insanely broad, and likely incorrect judgements, based on people's choices of vehicles or where they live, especially when he questioned their parenting, made him look like a jackass in that post.

No need to grasp at straws when you are on the right side of the argument anyways!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Muta

I also fail to see 'arrogance' in my posts, not sure where moon's getting that. I'm just voicing my opinion, much in the same way he's arguing he's allowed to do.

From Post #150 if the thread:

It is hoped, though, that one makes the proper choices through proper research in deciding where to live; one should suffer the consequences of deciding where exactly that location is

Does that not say to the world that you know better for all people's living desires/needs and that 'Proper research' ( Research on what exactly?) suggets living inner-city would be the only logical conclusion?

How is moon arrogant in suggesting that in a perfect world he can live in his 2000 sq. house in the burbs and you can live in your inner city condo and that striving to satisfy both of your needs/desires is probably a better compromise than forcing a good number of unwilling people to scale down their lifestyles?