patrick.net

wthrfrk80 says

That's a bad argument, regardless of one's stance on the whole "gay" issue. A lot of people think that certain behaviors are bad w/o actually indulging in it themselves.

For example, I think that loan-sharking is bad behavior. And I rail against it constantly. But believe it or not, I don't have some deeply-repressed desire to do loan-sharking myself. And I don't hate myself. Really.

Mind, using an inappropriate analogy hardly represents a good argument...

Your argument was that anyone who disapproves of homosexual behavior has a deeply-repressed desire for homosexual beharvior. Is that correct? Is that your assertion?

I gave a counter-example of a situation where someone could disapprove of a behavior and yet NOT have a deeply-repressed desire for said behavior.

If you're going to make an assertion, the "burden of proof" is on you to prove the assertion. The assertion that all (or most) people who disapprove of homosexual behavior are themselves gay is quite a claim. You should probably back it up.

wthrfrk80 says

Your argument was that anyone who disapproves of homosexual behavior has a deeply-repressed desire for homosexual beharvior. Is that correct? Is that your assertion?

I gave a counter-example of a situation where someone could disapprove of a behavior and yet NOT have a deeply-repressed desire for said behavior.

If you're going to make an assertion, the "burden of proof" is on you to prove the assertion. The assertion that all (or most) people who disapprove of homosexual behavior are themselves gay is quite a claim. You should probably back it up.

It wasn't my argument. Keep up.

And I don't agree with his point, but drawing a parallel between an occupation and sexual orientation is clearly a false analogy.

Bigsby says

It wasn't my argument. Keep up.

Do you need me to spell it out for you? The following is a direct quote:

yaletownman says

Look, Any 1st year psyche student can figure out that Rootvg comes on this site to project his self loathing and guilt after indulging in the very things he hates. Nobody is so obsessed with the behaviour of others unless that have it themselves.

You made a totally baseless accusation.

If you don't like Rootvg's opinions, fine. Use the "Ignore" feature. I've already done this with several of the "far right" trolls on here that just repeat whatever they hear on AM radio.

But I don't make bizzarre, baseless accusations against those individuals.

wthrfrk80 says

Bigsby says

It wasn't my argument. Keep up.

Do you need me to spell it out for you? The following is a direct quote:

yaletownman says

Look, Any 1st year psyche student can figure out that Rootvg comes on this site to project his self loathing and guilt after indulging in the very things he hates. Nobody is so obsessed with the behaviour of others unless that have it themselves.

You made a totally baseless accusation.

If you don't like Rootvg's opinions, fine. Use the "Ignore" feature. I've already done this with several of the "far right" trolls that just repeat whatever they hear on AM radio.

But I don't make bizzarre, baseless accusations against those individuals.

Are you daft? Look at the names. Good grief.

Yes I screwed up the names. The noise all starts to sound the same after awhile, regardless of the source.

wthrfrk80 says

Yes I screwed up the names. The noise all starts to sound the same after awhile, regardless of the source.

Not much of an apology...

I apologize for claiming that you made the original argument. I was incorrect.

But you rushed in to defend his "argument" so I stand by my points even if they were directed toward the wrong person.

wthrfrk80 says

I apologize for claiming that you made the original argument. I was incorrect.

But you rushed in to defend his "argument" so I stand by my points even if they were directed toward the wrong person.

Err, I think you need to read what I said once again. I didn't defend his argument at all. What I did was to point out the flaw in your own. It's pretty weak to accuse a poster of making a bad argument by producing your own equally bad argument. That was my point.

bmwman91 says

Anyway, I have been looking at stuff up in the Fremont & Hayward hills. It would be great to have easy access to the trails, and maybe some additional peace & quiet. For those that live up there, how's the commute to the SV? I dread going near 880, but some have said that traffic has improved or something. 237 looks nasty! Shit, it seems like I should just stash a power boat somewhere down there & shoot over to Stevens Creek. Hell, I could ride up that, stash it and walk 100ft to my office!

Prices up in the hills are a little high for my liking. Maybe sometime next year they will have fallen a little more, assuming inventories recover.

BMWman,
i reverse commute on 237 (go east in the AM). That's smooth, but the west in AM, east in PM looks ugly. West in the AM, and S on 880 in AM seems bad as late as 10 am. East 237 in PM is bad past 7 pm.
There is the express lane from 880S to 237W and vice versa, so you could get a BMW motorcycle! or carpool, or pay the toll.
Google Maps now shows the time for a given route, based on current traffic conditions. I tried it a couple times and it was accurate, so you could fiddle around with that. I'm not sure how it handles roads with carpool lanes though. Imagine 237 W in AM; on average the traffic speed may be 30 mph, but it's like that by the 2 right lanes being 20 mph and the carpool lane being 55 mph.

Parts of Fremont are pretty nice, but, it varies widely. Mission San Jose area is nicest, but it's expensive, Cupertino-level. While most of Fremont is the same school district, there's a wide variance, so the part that goes to Mission SJ pays a premium for that. It's risky though; a few years ago they changed the borders so people on the edge, who had paid a premium for MSJ, then lost it.

the eastern part of Milpitas is not bad, actually in the hills there's some nice houses, and the commute is a bit shorter.

Whoa whoa wait...this is a housing thread? I thought it was about...oh wait nevermind. It does say "East Bay is On Fire" so I guess it is about real estate. My bad. ;-)

At first I thought the thread was about another wildfire.

SiO2 says

Parts of Fremont are pretty nice, but, it varies widely. Mission San Jose area is nicest, but it's expensive, Cupertino-level. While most of Fremont is the same school district, there's a wide variance, so the part that goes to Mission SJ pays a premium for that. It's risky though; a few years ago they changed the borders so people on the edge, who had paid a premium for MSJ, then lost it.

the eastern part of Milpitas is not bad, actually in the hills there's some nice houses, and the commute is a bit shorter.

Thanks. What you mention about 237 is sort of what I was expecting. Yeah, I'd rather chock up the bridge toll than pay that much of my time. Then again, 101 to/from Willow Road sucks ass too lol. Maybe that is why rents are shooting up around Mountain View...without wild housing price appreciation, people don't think the commute is worth it. Then again, if traffic so so bad, people obviously live over there!

School districts are not really a concern of mine. My plans only really include 1 kid (3-5 years from now), and I am a big believer that parenting matters more than the school. That, and I can probably just send them to parochial school if the public ones are THAT bad.

So, for now anyway, I think I'll just keep enjoying my "renting for less than buying" setup & my 5 minute bike ride to work...while I still can!

well if you look at the bums living under the freeway underpass every morning on the way to work, most are white. so maybe those asians' mouths were open because they were looking at those...