I missed all of this in the cross-posting, which might be part of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
If it is acceptable to infringe on people's "rights" to have their houses burn down, or something, in the city, then it is the same in the country. Hence the comparisons of the two. If it is unacceptable, well, bring the pitchforks, but leave the torches at home, and storm city hall.
|
This is demonstrably false - first, because your language is unnecessarily inflammatory (if this is a "rights" issue, it's not so in the way you've described here), and second, because situational or temporal issues often dictate differences in how rights are applied.
Quote:
|
If it is acceptable in the country and doable in the country and not being done then odds are the issue is about money.
|
I address this above - but "money" isn't some fungible topic. It isn't an unlimited well. And it isn't anything that is guaranteed.
Quote:
|
No where did I write the whole thing off as "just about money." I was referring to the municipal provider. As noted in that paragraph.
|
Note this is kind of at odds with the above.
And there is no municipal provider - at least none directly responsible. This is completely beyond what would be expected. This changes the calculus.
Quote:
|
I'm admittedly in a pissy mood tonight, but seriously I'd prefer it if people read my entire posts before mischaracterizing my point. Disagree all you like, but do so honestly.
|
That's fair, and I didn't mean to mischaracterize - I promise it wasn't intentionally taking points out of context or anything else.