• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life.....

Where would you choose to live?

  • Total voters
    42
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

No more bumper to bumper traffic for me...
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Harry Guerrilla said:
Living in the city, to protect the wooded areas.

There is a still a lot to explore and discover, even in our known wooded areas. …
Click to expand...

Respectfully visiting wooded areas is fine. Building your house on top of them, well, that's a problem.
 
Last edited:
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Chappy said:
Respectfully visiting wooded areas is fine. Building your house on top of them, well, that's a problem.
Click to expand...

A lot of what is discounted with that, is that a lot of landowners treat their wooded areas like a micro nature conservancies.

Here there are a few devastating plants that have to be controlled.
Like kudzu, that stuff was brought over from Japan in the 30's to help control soil erosion.
It eats wooded areas for breakfast, if it isn't managed by property owners.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

kudzucabin-h.jpg


An example of what it can do.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Chappy said:
“Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001​
Click to expand...

That's actually really funny. "Real environmentalists" live in areas of high pollution? Seems to me like the real environmentalists are the one who live OUT of the cities, cultivating and taking care of the land.

I think the fundamentalist Amish and others who don't use electricity and machinery are the "real envionmentalists".
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Chappy said:
Respectfully visiting wooded areas is fine. Building your house on top of them, well, that's a problem.
Click to expand...

You do realize that millions of trees and other plants were destroyed to build a city, right? Not to mention all the animal habitats that were bulldozed over. How many trees and animals had to die for these "real environmentalists" to have a home?
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Rural but with easy access to urban.

Rural may be peaceful but I would get bored.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

If I was forced to choose for some reason, I would pick the country. I couldn't stand living downtown in a big city. I'd much rather live in a suburb or in a small town near a large city than either of those options though.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Mellie said:
That's actually really funny. "Real environmentalists" live in areas of high pollution? Seems to me like the real environmentalists are the one who live OUT of the cities, cultivating and taking care of the land. …
Click to expand...

Cities are areas of high human impact; they needn't be areas of high pollution. With better formulated fuels and more and more regulation of vehicles, better recycling programs and more effective waste systems, cities limit our impacts. There's plenty of room for improvement but we've come a long way, baby.

People living out of the cities, cultivating and taking care of the land are called ‘farmers’ and with today's automation, we really don't need that many of them; the fewer the better.

Mellie said:
You do realize that millions of trees and other plants were destroyed to build a city, right? Not to mention all the animal habitats that were bulldozed over. How many trees and animals had to die for these "real environmentalists" to have a home?
Click to expand...

Indeed, all human settlements are highly destructive of the native species occupying the land. As Donna Moulton pointed out in her letter to the editor, there is no such thing as a vacant lot. The point of her letter was that by constraining our development within our cities, we eliminate urban sprawl and minimize our impact across the wider landscape.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

If forced to choose, rural.

If not forced to choose, rural.

I grew up on a farm, and I like open areas over cities any day.

On the other hand, being 15-20 mins from a large town/small city and 5-10 mins from a couple small towns is nice in terms of access to stores and the like.

I would probably prefer an area where there were no neighbors within viewing range of the unaided eye.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

I can't stand small areas, because they are so boring. So if I was forced to choose I would pick the city any day. Right now, I'm living in a apartment in the city centre. But I do like to visit the country side.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Chappy said:
“Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001​
Click to expand...

Which is complete horse****, it's certainly not visitors from the city who maintain the wilderness, who control the feral animals introduced by city people, who help restore the wilderness after fire, flood or drought.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

“Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001​

spud_meister said:
Which is complete horse****, it's certainly not visitors from the city who maintain the wilderness, who control the feral animals introduced by city people, who help restore the wilderness after fire, flood or drought.
Click to expand...

Not complete horse****. Not by a long shot. Indeed your statement is truly idiotic.

City dwellers contribute significantly in their labor and resources to wilderness protection, restoration and maintenance.

Feral animals is not constrained to city dwellers, it is a human society issue.

My point is that without people living in cities there is no wilderness; it would be despoiled by sparse but widespread human habitation. It is a tragedy for us who love the wilderness that more people don't live in cities.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Chappy said:
City dwellers contribute significantly in their labor and resources to wilderness protection, restoration and maintenance... My point is that without people living in cities there is no wilderness; it would be despoiled by sparse but widespread human habitation. It is a tragedy for us who love the wilderness that more people don't live in cities.
Click to expand...

Rural dwellers contribute significantly in their labor and resources to wilderness protection, restoration and maitenance... My point is that without people living in rural areas there is no wilderness; it would be despoiled by sparse but widespread human habitation. It is a tragedy for us who love the wilderness that more people don't live in rural areas.

There's plenty of space in the rural areas for city people, come on over.
 
Last edited:
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Rural is my choice, but a good church must be not fare.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Alfons said:
Rural is my choice, but a good church must be not fare.
Click to expand...
The first part tracks, but I have no idea what you mean by the second part.

Are you saying it's not acceptable to consume a good church?

Consumption of bad churches is ok, then?

:mrgreen:
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Mellie said:
Let's say you MUST choose to either live in a wide open space, far from city lights or right in the center of a huge urban area....which would you choose?
Click to expand...

I have chosen to live in the rural aria of the Black Hills, in real life. The city can go slide into the sea.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Im a big city boy born and raised and lived in most of my life. I now live semirural and Id rather be in the city.
When I shut my door in the City or now semi rural its the same, im in my own castle. The city provides what you cant get rurally, health care is superior and much faster to recieve, theres far more services and of course theres the drawbacks. I do plus's and minus' and to me the city comes out on top
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

I was raised rural, moved to the city to go to college. Been in the city ever since, New Orleans and Houston. I voted city. I enjoyed the increase in women to date, rural areas are pretty confining in that sense, and its an important part of life. I've enjoyed the jobs available, interesting friends you can meet, convenience of shopping and medical care, variety of hobbies one can pursue. I live in the burbs, but I could take the city center also.
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Mellie said:
Let's say you MUST choose to either live in a wide open space, far from city lights or right in the center of a huge urban area....which would you choose?
Click to expand...

Given but these two options, I'd choose to be as far away from those city lights as possible.
Far enought, so I would be able to see the stars at night..
Right now its "small town, USA " for us....a compromise
 
Re: If you had to choose one of these two places to live for the rest of your life...

Harry Guerrilla said:
kudzucabin-h.jpg


An example of what it can do.
Click to expand...

It's funny when I moved down here to the southeast, I didn't know about this. I saw an area of land much like this and I commented on how beautiful it looked. I received strange looks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom