View Single Post
Old 10-13-2008, 04:04 PM   #18
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
This doesn't answer the question. Where are they supposed to live? Please be specific.
Somewhere that doesn't get destroyed on a bi-annual basis. Or: Canada.

And fast enough compared to what?
As in, they got out fast enough, that they were clear of the storm when it hit.

As you yourself pointed out, hurricane paths are not 100% predictable. Earthquakes aren't predictable at all and tornadoes have little to no warning. The argument seems to be, "if a natural disaster hits you in the middle of the night and you can't avoid it, then just please die quietly as you're getting what you deserve for living there". Never mind that it may be the only place they can afford to live or where the jobs they can find are, etc.
Earthquakes can't be predicted days in advance except in cases when there have been a significant number of tremors before it. Also, due to geological studies, we can predict how often a fault should move and trigger an earthquake. It's not an exact science, but it's certainly not "unpredictable".

And the difference between somebody receiving warnings throughout the week that a hurricane is coming and somebody at home all comfy with a storm popping out of nowhere are totally different. I live in California and we hear about hurricanes and what path they'll take and how long they'll take to get there. Surely people who live in these paths get this news as well.

Case in point

Please point where I made any comment at all regarding your empathy. Since you won't be able to, perhaps we can drop the false accusation of personal attacks? Thanks in advance.
Oh, so sure you are?
All in all, I think your post makes several poorly thought-out assumptions and displays a general lack of empathy.
It's in the first reply you made to this topic.

I wasn't trying to tie it to the rest of the U.S.. You were discussing a specific region, which I kept on topic, and then decided to introduce immigration issues in Southern California (I can only assume that's where you were going).
What? Where on earth are you getting that. I introduced and had no intention to introduce any such thing. You claimed disasters decreased the prices of homes and nowhere else would you see a similar kind of people who can't afford to live anywhere else. I countered by saying yes indeed there are many places like this even in California, where natural disasters are infrequent at best.

"they can live wherever they want, just as long as they don't expect anyone to some save their butt when they don't get out fast enough"

"they knew what they were getting into and it's not our job to help them get out of their own mess."

"considering I have no idea what podunk trailer-park housing costs have to do with the rest of the US." (emphasis added)

And I repeat my earlier sincere hope that you never find yourself in a situation in which you need the assistance of others. Lest you be forced to have to change your perspective or something.
Considering I'm operating under a libertarian perspective here, I would probably say it's my fault anyway.

"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,