U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-14-2013, 12:28 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,799 posts, read 10,707,607 times
Reputation: 2517

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FC Merrifield View Post
According to your logic, no one should even ride a bike because, in an accident, they're more likely to hurt a pedestrian.

in an accident a bike is much less likely to hurt a pedestrian than a car is, as far as I know. Both because its a lot less weight than the car, and its usually not going quite as fast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2013, 12:36 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,799 posts, read 10,707,607 times
Reputation: 2517
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77 View Post
It's "Do the Right Thing," not "Do the Right Things." Maybe you've seen that movie instead.

Ashburn and Arlington are both primarily suburban in character, notwithstanding the apartments/condos in certain parts of Arlington.

Do you believe that intergroup relations are worse in Rosslyn, Clarendon, or Shirlington than they are in the more suburban parts of Arlington? Are they bad in Crystal City?

If those areas aren't racially diverse enough, can you cite any upper middle class areas that are predominatly white and asian that are highly dense where there are major intergroup issues, in the USA?

I can't think of any. A movie about black-white issues in a place where most whites were lower middle class, and most blacks were poor, hardly says anything.

As far as I can tell the relative harmony in NoVa is a function of income, education, the fact that few people in the area have proprietary feelings about it (or about particular neighborhoods) and the fact that the diversity is mostly a mix of whites and assorted new immigrant groups, mostly asians. poor hispanics in this area in fact DO live with very low levels of sq ft per person (rather lower than were common in Brooklyn circa 1989, I think) but for whatever reasons do not make the same claims on society that african americans in big cities often have. AFAICT most african americans in NoVa (outside Alexandria) are middle class or above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 12:42 PM
 
136 posts, read 191,383 times
Reputation: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
in an accident a bike is much less likely to hurt a pedestrian than a car is, as far as I know. Both because its a lot less weight than the car, and its usually not going quite as fast.
I meant a bicycle-pedestrian accident. According to their logic, no one should ride a bike because they're "at war" or something and the poor pedestrian would be hurt due to their lack of metallic protection. So obviously pedestrians are the most moral, then unicyclists, then tricyclists (bless the little children), then moped riders, etc. and those heathens that commute on aircraft carriers are THE WORST. Wait, actually people who lie in bed in small 8x8 rooms are the most virtuous. We should all aspire to be so holy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 12:47 PM
 
314 posts, read 342,991 times
Reputation: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by FC Merrifield View Post
Maybe they they bought Suburbans because they have lots of kids, maybe they have lots of stuff, maybe they need it for their business, maybe they just like the way it looks.
Next time when you see a big SUV, look inside. Most of a time, it's just 1 person driving it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 12:55 PM
 
2,462 posts, read 8,054,429 times
Reputation: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77 View Post
I would suggest it means that people can be morally superior by not passing judgment on those who live in "McMansions," and that greed and hubris can come in forms that are not always linked to the square footage of one's primary residence.
Amen.

I would also point out that the Pope, as a Jesuit, took a vow of poverty, and the decisions he made about his personal residence and method of transportation do not necessarily set the template that others must follow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 01:00 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,799 posts, read 10,707,607 times
Reputation: 2517
Quote:
Originally Posted by FC Merrifield View Post
I meant a bicycle-pedestrian accident. According to their logic, no one should ride a bike because they're "at war" or something and the poor pedestrian would be hurt due to their lack of metallic protection. So obviously pedestrians are the most moral, then unicyclists, then tricyclists (bless the little children), then moped riders, etc. and those heathens that commute on aircraft carriers are THE WORST. Wait, actually people who lie in bed in small 8x8 rooms are the most virtuous. We should all aspire to be so holy.

well, I hesitate to speak for others, but i think the distinction is something like this. A person who bikes can go faster than a ped, and thats why they get a bike. A person in a car can go faster than someone on a bike, and thats why they get a car.

But someone in a really big car does NOT go faster than someone in a small car, so one may surmise that many people get a bigger car to do better in a crash. Now obviously (to me) thats very often not the case, its also my impression that its far from an unusual motivation for a larger vehicle.

Personally I tend to think the main problem with larger vehicles is their worse MPG, and obviously there are lots of things that can offset that (hybrids, carpooling, frugal driving style, fewer miles traveled, etc) There are certainly types of vehicle choices that people make that I find a tad more offputting - but I guess none of them is as offputting to me as the very notion that there could never be anything moral about such a choice, and that even to have an opinion makes me "greedy and arrogant".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 01:03 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,799 posts, read 10,707,607 times
Reputation: 2517
Quote:
Originally Posted by claremarie View Post
Amen.

I would also point out that the Pope, as a Jesuit, took a vow of poverty, and the decisions he made about his personal residence and method of transportation do not necessarily set the template that others must follow.

To clarify

my first post on this did not say all others must follow this (either all people, all Catholics, all NoVans, or even all Cardinals)

Nor did it say it was morally superior, would get you into heaven, or whatever.

I merely pointed out he did it, and that if more of us followed the broad approach, it would help us with some of the issues of housing and transportation we find in this region and which are discusssed by many other people in this thread.

Does anyone contest that?

If more people who had the option of a luxorious auto took the bus, would that not improve many things about our region?

Why is suggesting ways to IMPROVE our region more offensive than people simply complaining about our region?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 01:26 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,799 posts, read 10,707,607 times
Reputation: 2517
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77 View Post
Ashburn and Arlington are both primarily suburban in character, notwithstanding the apartments/condos in certain parts of Arlington.
FYI, Arlington has a population of density of about 8300 per square mile, while DC has a density of just over 10,000 a square mile. Not really that big a difference.

Maybe DC has more parkland though, I'm not sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 01:32 PM
 
136 posts, read 191,383 times
Reputation: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
well, I hesitate to speak for others, but i think the distinction is something like this. A person who bikes can go faster than a ped, and thats why they get a bike. A person in a car can go faster than someone on a bike, and thats why they get a car.

But someone in a really big car does NOT go faster than someone in a small car, so one may surmise that many people get a bigger car to do better in a crash. Now obviously (to me) thats very often not the case, its also my impression that its far from an unusual motivation for a larger vehicle.

Personally I tend to think the main problem with larger vehicles is their worse MPG, and obviously there are lots of things that can offset that (hybrids, carpooling, frugal driving style, fewer miles traveled, etc) There are certainly types of vehicle choices that people make that I find a tad more offputting - but I guess none of them is as offputting to me as the very notion that there could never be anything moral about such a choice, and that even to have an opinion makes me "greedy and arrogant".
OK, then would I be more moral if my car was made of dixie cup plastic, thus ensuring that the other car I hit would not be damaged?

I don't find you greedy or arrogant, but I think it's offputting for someone to use mpgs as a moral barometer. It's anecdotal, but the people that I know who drive higher mpg cars do so because they don't really care about driving and want to save money on gas. Morality was not their focus, and they certainly don't perceive themselves as having made a more moral decision.

Yes, you can argue that there's something moral in just about any decision we make. But really, I would rather not judge a person's morality based on the mpg of their car. There's so many better indicators of a person's morality that this just wouldn't even enter my mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 01:37 PM
 
5,071 posts, read 8,637,365 times
Reputation: 2722
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
FYI, Arlington has a population of density of about 8300 per square mile, while DC has a density of just over 10,000 a square mile. Not really that big a difference.

Maybe DC has more parkland though, I'm not sure.
DC has many areas that are suburban in character as well, such as Kent, Spring Valley, the Palisades and the DC portion of Chevy Chase.

I lived in one of the denser parts of DC for a decade. The negative effects of having neighbors within a few feet who were loud, partied late at night, frequently needed or professed to need emergency medical care and/or failed to maintain their properties adequately were significantly more pronounced than what we've encountered in the suburbs, even though we have had a few neighbors who let their properties go to seed or were hoarders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top