Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder how people would rank these two cities if we don't count the national capitol factor for DC. Not to give SF an unfair advantage (which that would obviously be doing and is not realistic or really fair to DC), but just to look at the two as just plain cities in order to compare them. Would most of the people who are favoring DC still favor it over SF for what the city itself has to offer, or are many of you just placing importance on the gov't factor in DC - in which case DC should automatically be the #1 city in the US. Just curious.
Well, considering DC's sole reason to be is to house the federal government, and everything ever developed there, from play houses to the Smithsonian, are direct reflections of that purpose, then I'd venture to say if the government factor was removed, San Francisco would easily eclipse DC. If you removed the government from DC, it probably would be nothing but a far-flung 'burb of Baltimore.
I was thinking the same think... possibly the school he went to is doing period work and teaching him about eugenics.
Alright that's enough you two. You don't have to believe me. Honestly I don't remember where I heard this I think it was in an history of the English language class or maybe it was somewhere else. I honestly don't remember. The correct term would be taught. I have my degree which I worked very hard for thank you very much!
This is not something I just made up which was my point. I dont' think it's silly thinking from the 19th century. It makes sense and this stuff goes back to the bible. Remember Noah's three sons? So splitting the human race into three sections and going from there is not anything new.
Oh and I went to Columbus State University. And DC rocks.
Alright that's enough you two. You don't have to believe me. Honestly I don't remember where I heard this I think it was in an history of the English language class or maybe it was somewhere else. I honestly don't remember. The correct term would be taught. I have my degree which I worked very hard for thank you very much!
This is not something I just made up which was my point. I dont' think it's silly thinking from the 19th century. It makes sense and this stuff goes back to the bible. Remember Noah's three sons? So splitting the human race into three sections and going from there is not anything new.
Oh and I went to Columbus State University. And DC rocks.
Sorry, I'm not trying to make fun of you, and you aren't any less educated for having regurgitated what others have taught. I believe that you learned it in school, but perhaps you might've misremembered a theory that was debunked as one that is still current as it seems unlikely that a fully accredited four-year state institution would teach something that off. Anyhow, the theory as a whole has been thrown out by most anthropologists and geneticists. Please update accordingly.
It makes sense and this stuff goes back to the bible. Remember Noah's three sons? So splitting the human race into three sections and going from there is not anything new.
The Bible's factual accuracy ratio is about on par with the entire internet, so...
You're least likely to get a Bible thrown at you in San Francisco. That bumps it up a notch.
Sorry, I'm not trying to make fun of you, and you aren't any less educated for having regurgitated what others have taught. I believe that you learned it in school, but perhaps you might've misremembered a theory that was debunked as one that is still current as it seems unlikely that a fully accredited four-year state institution would teach something that off. Anyhow, the theory as a whole has been thrown out by most anthropologists and geneticists. Please update accordingly.
I didn't misremember. And I will correct myself it was briefly mentioned in a history of the English language class but originally expounded upon in a Geography class. I'm not saying that everything is easily divided into three. Because people have mixed and everybody has a little this and that in them. The modern human is more complicated than just three races. Why not just say "I disagree and here's my opinion" versus implying that I don't know what I'm talking about like I'm stupid.
Alright fine you know so darn much. How many races are there?
The Bible's factual accuracy ratio is about on par with the entire internet, so...
You're least likely to get a Bible thrown at you in San Francisco. That bumps it up a notch.
I'm not throwing bibles at anyone! I'm not a fundamentalist. However I have a right to site the **** bible. I'm simply stating what I KNOW.
NOBODY has to agree with me and I'll still be right .
Obviously we'll have to pretend we're grown ups and agree to disagree. I stand behind my original statement.
Back to the issue at hand.
Personally I like San Francisco. It's very pretty. As far as importance I don't know. I'm sure there are Californians who would gladly school me on how important it is. I just thought it was very very pretty with lots of hills and nice views. Mark Twain said that the coldest winter he ever had was a summer spent in San Francisco and I can see his point. Never thought I would need a jacket in July.
So I will stick with saying that DC is more important but each city has it's place but not knowing the business side of San Francisco I won't say it isn't important. But at the same time I don't know how it effects the rest of the country. I don't eat rice a roni so what's in it for me?
I mean Boston educates the country's elite and has a lot of medical research places. Houston like it or not keeps our country's ferocious oil appetite fed. DC runs the country whether you hate politics or love it the laws that come out of DC affect the rest of the country.
I didn't misremember. And I will correct myself it was briefly mentioned in a history of the English language class but originally expounded upon in a Geography class. I'm not saying that everything is easily divided into three. Because people have mixed and everybody has a little this and that in them. The modern human is more complicated than just three races. Why not just say "I disagree and here's my opinion" versus implying that I don't know what I'm talking about like I'm stupid.
Alright fine you know so darn much. How many races are there?
I don't think it's much of an opinion anymore since there's a scientific consensus with genetic research to back it up. The idea of races is outmoded (so there's little to answer in terms of "how many races are there") and has little physical basis though it's an interesting social construct. It's fine if you didn't misremember--in that case, I think it's odd that your college course would teach it.
As for what SF does, that depends a lot on how much of the Bay Area we're throwing into the mix. If we're including Stanford and Silicon Valley, then SF is contributing an incredible amount right now since the technology developed within Silicon Valley radically changes your day-to-day living and how you learn about and interact with the world. SF is also one of the larger financial centers of the nation and has had a strong role in modern history when it comes to social and cultural movements.
I don't think it's much of an opinion anymore since there's a scientific consensus with genetic research to back it up. The idea of races is outmoded (so there's little to answer in terms of "how many races are there") and has little physical basis though it's an interesting social construct. It's fine if you didn't misremember--in that case, I think it's odd that your college course would teach it.
Yeah at the end of the day I"m still black (or negroid with a mongoloid ancestor thrown in the mix) so I'm not hopping on the whole we're all post racial bandwagon. There are differences in races so ignoring that is just silly and some have argued that our country's problem is that race isn't talked about enough. WHich is actually besides the point since I'm not talking about cultural differences I'm talking about physical differences.
So I can't agree with the idea of race being outmoded. Besides recognizing and celebrating differences isn't a bad thing. I think the professor had a point and still have to take his side. Again I stand behind my original statement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't have to believe me. Honestly I don't remember where I heard this I think it was in an history of the English language class or maybe it was somewhere else. I honestly don't remember. The correct term would be taught. I have my degree which I worked very hard for thank you very much!
.
