261–270 of 298 posts
I can't possibly roll my eyes hard enough. But if the author thinks suburbia is bad I'd hate to hear what he'd say about my rural upbringing. Meanwhile I'd consider an urban upbringing the worst option. Give me rural America for kids any day of the week. Suburbia works in a pinch. But dense urban? Urgh, no thank you.
I've yet to read a single article about why surburbia sucks that would be convincing to me as a better alternative than my life growing up in suburbia. If I wanted to play in a field, I went to the field. If I wanted to explore the woods, I went to the woods. Too far to walk? I had a bike, and a skateboard. I didn't have to spend my life walking on pavement from concrete box to concrete box, surrounded by indifferent…
I agree -- that sounds quite terrible indeed!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that I'm not concerned about what I, you, or other laymen think about the science, here. I'm concerned about what the scientific community thinks. The scientific community does not accept the claimed social effects for lead. It's quite literally fringe science.
Appreciate your point of view. Another poster mentioned a paper by James J. Feigenbaum† and Christopher Muller‡. Are they some of the scientists you mentioned and labeled as "fringe", in regard to their point of view? Clearly, violence in communities are multi-faceted topic that cannot be easily explained by something so simple as Lead. However, it might be a possible contributor. That being said, I do agree with you…
Yes, lead might be a contributing factor in the Boomer crime wave - it might be proven, one day. But the laymen pushing the hypothesis start out with this is THE explanation! and then retreat to you can't PROVE it doesn't have an effect!. This is classic behavior by supporters of psuedo-science.
I'm trying to find words to describe my distain for this article, but I can't think of anything that isn't seen as a direct attack on the author, which isn't my goal. Basically America is bad because we had space for cars when they were invented? There are plenty of places in America where you can get by without a car. I live in "suburbia". A small city of 30,000 in Indiana called Valparaiso. We have a vibrant downto…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you find any counter arguments other than just calling this fringe? I mean we did ban lead gas exit so presumably it was known to be harmful. I accept it's not my specialty, but when you have a well known and reasonable method of action and supporting research it's a little harder to just dismiss.
The burden is on the claim , not on those pointing out that the claim isn't accepted.
Unless you mean that in the most narrow terms, as in literally just popularity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden is on the claim , not on those pointing out that the claim isn't accepted.
Yea, no. That's not how science works, it's not a popularity contest. If you have both a reasonable method of action and can back it up with actual reasarch you become the default until actual evidence suggests otherwise. Unless you mean that in the most narrow terms, as in literally just popularity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, no. That's not how science works, it's not a popularity contest. If you have both a reasonable method of action and can back it up with actual reasarch you become the default until actual evidence suggests otherwise. Unless you mean that in the most narrow terms, as in literally just popularity.
Sorry, that's exactly how it works. You've pushing a claim. The claim needs proof. The burden is those pushing the claim, not the people pointing out that it isn't proven.
That's not to say it's going to win as the only explanation, just that it needs to be disproven not ignored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walking to the grocery store sounds ridiculous to me. Even when I could see one from my house I never walked there to do the weekly shopping. I typically buy more than I can carry. I guess it depends on whether you have a big family or not...
"weekly shopping". There's your difference. In those places, you do 5-10 minutes of shopping 7 days a week, instead of 60 minutes of shopping once a week. Those corner grocery stores are tiny, you can be in and out quick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This exactly... my friends live in the city and make the same amount of money as me. Pay 50% more for a house and pay for private school, an additional 20K a year. Just to be closer to some nice restaurants? No thanks. my suburban life is quite and close to starbucks, Im satisfied.
You miss the idea, no fact, that the people in the city scoff at the idea of considering Olive Garden a fancy meal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walking to the grocery store sounds ridiculous to me. Even when I could see one from my house I never walked there to do the weekly shopping. I typically buy more than I can carry. I guess it depends on whether you have a big family or not...
No no, it works differently. The concept of weekly shopping is completely alien and baffling to people living there. This is the way it works: Your wife/mom/yourself want to cook pasta today, but some ingredient is lacking (say, tomatoes). So you go to the store and get some tomatoes. On your way you might grab two or three other items, but that's it. There's no such thing as weekly shopping.