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.
In addition of the satisfaction of going more often also because it's a lot cheaper, more convenient, and doesn't require taking time off work. That's like saying why go to your local beach throughout summer when you can just take a one week vacation to Hawaii.
And yet people still go to Hawaii...And yet people still take time off work...
Your argument would be like someone saying, screw Hawaii! I'm never going there because I could just go to Newport Beach every summer weekend! Hawaii? Bleh!
Not to mention that most people in SoCal live closer to the beach than Big Bear, or that SoCal beaches are decent while Big Bear skiing objectively sucks.
And no, making a six hour round trip between Sacramento and Tahoe ten times a year is not any more convenient than taking one flight to SLC or Denver once a year and staying right next to the ski slopes.
And yet people still go to Hawaii...And yet people still take time off work...
Your argument would be like someone saying, screw Hawaii! I'm never going there because I could just go to Newport Beach every summer weekend! Hawaii? Bleh!
Not to mention that most people in SoCal live closer to the beach than Big Bear, or that SoCal beaches are decent while Big Bear skiing objectively sucks.
And no, making a six hour round trip between Sacramento and Tahoe ten times a year is not any more convenient than taking one flight to SLC or Denver once a year and staying right next to the ski slopes.
Ok? I never suggested they didn't. Yes they go to Hawaii but still also go to their local beaches.
That wasn't my argument at all. I clearly was showing people like to do both and it's doesn't have to be one or the other which what you are arguing; that people shouldn't go skiing throughout the season and should just take one big ski trip instead. Most people don't want to cram one of their favorite recreational activities into just one week a year.
But beaches in SoCal are so mediocre compared to Hawaii and the water is too cold to swim most of the year. So why bother going when you can just go to Hawaii for a week? <---- that's your logic there.
And yet people still go to Hawaii...And yet people still take time off work...
Your argument would be like someone saying, screw Hawaii! I'm never going there because I could just go to Newport Beach every summer weekend! Hawaii? Bleh!
Not to mention that most people in SoCal live closer to the beach than Big Bear, or that SoCal beaches are decent while Big Bear skiing objectively sucks.
And no, making a six hour round trip between Sacramento and Tahoe ten times a year is not any more convenient than taking one flight to SLC or Denver once a year and staying right next to the ski slopes.
I feel like an issue you have is that you have difficulty holding a line of thought when discussing something. Earlier you were talking about passing up a whole season of skiing for just the "cream of the crop" in Utah and that it was either Utah or nothing, so you're setting up this bargain of taking just one over the other--and then now you're trying to cast someone else's argument as a similar though converse one and saying that's silly when you had already done essentially the same thing and that someone else said nothing of that sort.
I think that problem stems from you riding on an established dislike of the Bay Area or something like that and just throwing up any argument you can even if they're nonsense, even if they're strawmen, and even if they're internally inconsistent which would make sense since you're not arguing to make a rationale case for anything--you're just arguing because you already have formed an opinion that you dislike a place and so you'll just keep chucking arguments no matter how senseless they are.
Does that sound about right to anyone else?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-30-2020 at 08:42 AM..
Ok? I never suggested they didn't. Yes they go to Hawaii but still also go to their local beaches.
That wasn't my argument at all. I clearly was showing people like to do both and it's doesn't have to be one or the other which what you are arguing; that people shouldn't go skiing throughout the season and should just take one big ski trip instead. Most people don't want to cram one of their favorite recreational activities into just one week a year.
But beaches in SoCal are so mediocre compared to Hawaii and the water is too cold to swim most of the year. So why bother going when you can just go to Hawaii for a week? <---- that's your logic there.
Fair enough, I get your argument now. Sorry I misunderstood.
To be honest, though, the disparity between big bear skiing and Utah skiing is far greater than the disparity between Newport Beach and Hawaii beaches, not to mention that most people in SoCal live far closer to a beach than to a ski slope.
But yes, I now understand that there are different people with different preferences, and that not everyone is super picky about the quality of the ski resort and might drive to Big Bear just for fun, not for the flawless powder snow.
Kind of like how some people might go to Olive Garden occasionally for fun instead of wait for that trip to Tuscany to eat real Italian food.
I feel like an issue you have is that you have difficulty holding a line of thought when discussing something. Earlier you were talking about passing up a whole season of skiing for just the "cream of the crop" in Utah and that it was either Utah or nothing, so you're setting up this bargain of taking just one over the other--and then now you're trying to cast someone else's argument as a similar though converse one and saying that's silly when you had already done essentially the same thing and that someone else said nothing of that sort.
I think that problem stems from you riding on an established dislike of the Bay Area or something like that and just throwing up any argument you can even if they're nonsense, even if they're strawmen, and even if they're internally inconsistent which would make sense since you're not arguing to make a rationale case for anything--you're just arguing because you already have formed an opinion that you dislike a place and so you'll just keep chucking arguments no matter how senseless they are.
Does that sound about right to anyone else?
That's not true, the others weren't necessarily clear in their logic at the time and now I accept their logic.
Kind of like how some people might go to Olive Garden occasionally for fun instead of wait for that trip to Tuscany to eat real Italian food.
Very good parallel, except:
You can get very good real Italian food in any number of restaurants in the United States, usually in cities with sizable Italian immigrant communities.
(You can also get dreck in Italian restaurants in those same cities.)
And no, making a six hour round trip between Sacramento and Tahoe ten times a year is not any more convenient than taking one flight to SLC or Denver once a year and staying right next to the ski slopes.
First of all, it is a three hour round trip not 6 hours from Sac to Tahoe.
Driving to Tahoe from Sacramento is way better than taking a plane to SLC or Denver.
You don't have to rent a car. You can make the trip on a whim, not plan a flight. You save time time because you don't have to drive to the airport no check-in, no TSA, no boarding a plane, no parking, and no renting a car.
Driving from Sacramento to Tahoe, I have the convenience of my own car and I don't have to check skis onto a plane. And its costs a lot less to drive to Tahoe from Sac than flying SLC or Denver.
I feel like an issue you have is that you have difficulty holding a line of thought when discussing something. Earlier you were talking about passing up a whole season of skiing for just the "cream of the crop" in Utah and that it was either Utah or nothing, so you're setting up this bargain of taking just one over the other--and then now you're trying to cast someone else's argument as a similar though converse one and saying that's silly when you had already done essentially the same thing and that someone else said nothing of that sort.
I think that problem stems from you riding on an established dislike of the Bay Area or something like that and just throwing up any argument you can even if they're nonsense, even if they're strawmen, and even if they're internally inconsistent which would make sense since you're not arguing to make a rationale case for anything--you're just arguing because you already have formed an opinion that you dislike a place and so you'll just keep chucking arguments no matter how senseless they are.
I feel like an issue you have is that you have difficulty holding a line of thought when discussing something. Earlier you were talking about passing up a whole season of skiing for just the "cream of the crop" in Utah and that it was either Utah or nothing, so you're setting up this bargain of taking just one over the other--and then now you're trying to cast someone else's argument as a similar though converse one and saying that's silly when you had already done essentially the same thing and that someone else said nothing of that sort.
I think that problem stems from you riding on an established dislike of the Bay Area or something like that and just throwing up any argument you can even if they're nonsense, even if they're strawmen, and even if they're internally inconsistent which would make sense since you're not arguing to make a rationale case for anything--you're just arguing because you already have formed an opinion that you dislike a place and so you'll just keep chucking arguments no matter how senseless they are.
Does that sound about right to anyone else?
Spot on. He's a native Californian who's always wanted to leave and thought the COL was too much. So he literally moved to a place that is at least 200% less expensive in OKC> He's a pretty sharp guy but is stubborn in that he always wants to set the agenda and move the goalposts to cause confusion and win the argument.
For skiing:
Park City
Jackson Hole (a bit further afield)
National Parks:
Moab/Arches/Canyonlands
Bryce and Zion
Grand Tetons and Yellowstone
Also, you've got Las Vegas if you're willing to drive 5-6 hours to the South. It is a long but pleasant drive.
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.
