View Single Post
Old 10-13-2008, 02:35 PM   #12
Web Rider
@Web Rider
Senior Member
Web Rider's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Your argument seems to be that people shouldn't live where they know that they could be the victims of a natural disaster. So please tell me which part of the world meets this criteria. I don't need to define "natural disaster" as I'm sure that you know what a natural disaster is.
I emphasized regularity in my post quite a bit. I know, living in California, that there could be an Earthquake. However, the probability of that earthquake being powerful enough to do any significant damage is extremely low.

Also, I would probably point out that Arizona or Idaho are not prone to natural disasters. Could one happen? Sure, could the moon fall on our heads? Sure. Whats the chance of it actually happening? Pretty darn low. The Chance of half of Florida getting demolished at least once in the next decade? Pretty good.

All in all, I think your post makes several poorly thought-out assumptions and displays a general lack of empathy. Why do people live in tornado alley (et al)? Better yet, why do people live in trailer parks in tornado alley (et al)? Your post seems to suggest that it's because they are lazy thrill-seekers looking to make a dime off the tax payers (I guess they themselves don't pay taxes?)? I guess you've never seen footage of a home owner crying over the loss of life and property. I guess you can't imagine what it's like to be so poor that the only place you can afford to live is where property prices are low due to the increased chance of natural disasters.
Technically, personal attacks are against Kavars Rules. My presumed lack of empathy, regardless of it is true, has very little bearing on reality. And I have lived in places in California where the property vales are soo law because of...well, just because they were low. Income was pretty low and jobs were scarce so we didn't need natural disasters to make things "cheap".

As mimartin pointed out, some people have to go to where the jobs are and sometimes that means having to live somewhere potentially dangerous. Regardless, despite all the things that I find to be generally offensive in your post, I do sincerely hope that you never have to find yourself in a position where you require the charity of others.
Yet, unlike your ad hominem attack on my character as a basis for refusing my post, I did take much of that into account in my OP.

If that's the only place for jobs, why don't we, as a society, give them incentives for find work elsewhere, or to get new jobs? If that's the only place jobs are located in their line of work, then shouldn't we as a society have the burden of pressing those companies to move their operations elsewhere, or, since those companies know their workers will have to deal with these things, shouldn't we pressure companies to take better care of their workers?

Much of that was addressed in my post though apparently you decided to think I was a jerk instead of actually reading any of it.

"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,