Do you know people that moved to Florida?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

Care to explain why the rare natural ecosystems found in Florida have been decimated in less than 200 years if not for the extraction of profit by the wealthy political class? Is that wealthy political class in Florida widely known to be liberal or conservative? Is it regarded as corrupt, or mostly just?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It's not up to me to present a counterpoint first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

Care to explain why the rare natural ecosystems found in Florida have been decimated in less than 200 years if not for the extraction of profit by the wealthy political class? Is that wealthy political class in Florida widely known to be liberal or conservative? Is it regarded as corrupt, or mostly just?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It's not up to me to present a counterpoint first.

Are you really saying with a straight face that you think development - residential and commercial - hasn't had devastating effects on, just for one example, the Everglades?

We now have more proof that fertilizer is largely responsible for the massive red tide events that have poisoned Florida waterways, summer after summer - though this year we got a break - killing uncountable numbers of fish, manatees, dolphins, birds, and destroying economic activity as well.

Habitat loss is a top reason for extinction, and development is a top reason for habitat loss. These statements aren't controversial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

Care to explain why the rare natural ecosystems found in Florida have been decimated in less than 200 years if not for the extraction of profit by the wealthy political class? Is that wealthy political class in Florida widely known to be liberal or conservative? Is it regarded as corrupt, or mostly just?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It's not up to me to present a counterpoint first.

Are you really saying with a straight face that you think development - residential and commercial - hasn't had devastating effects on, just for one example, the Everglades?

We now have more proof that fertilizer is largely responsible for the massive red tide events that have poisoned Florida waterways, summer after summer - though this year we got a break - killing uncountable numbers of fish, manatees, dolphins, birds, and destroying economic activity as well.

Habitat loss is a top reason for extinction, and development is a top reason for habitat loss. These statements aren't controversial.

^ And here, read some of these articles about what Big Sugar does to Florida's environment: https://www.google.com/search?q=big+sugar+florida+environment&oq=big+sugar+florida+environment&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i546l4.4075j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

Care to explain why the rare natural ecosystems found in Florida have been decimated in less than 200 years if not for the extraction of profit by the wealthy political class? Is that wealthy political class in Florida widely known to be liberal or conservative? Is it regarded as corrupt, or mostly just?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It's not up to me to present a counterpoint first.

Are you really saying with a straight face that you think development - residential and commercial - hasn't had devastating effects on, just for one example, the Everglades?

We now have more proof that fertilizer is largely responsible for the massive red tide events that have poisoned Florida waterways, summer after summer - though this year we got a break - killing uncountable numbers of fish, manatees, dolphins, birds, and destroying economic activity as well.

Habitat loss is a top reason for extinction, and development is a top reason for habitat loss. These statements aren't controversial.

For the benefit of the intelligence-impared, I have not made any claims. I have merely pointed out that you have the burden to prove your claims. Making further claims does not in any way support your priority unproven claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

Care to explain why the rare natural ecosystems found in Florida have been decimated in less than 200 years if not for the extraction of profit by the wealthy political class? Is that wealthy political class in Florida widely known to be liberal or conservative? Is it regarded as corrupt, or mostly just?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It's not up to me to present a counterpoint first.

Are you really saying with a straight face that you think development - residential and commercial - hasn't had devastating effects on, just for one example, the Everglades?

We now have more proof that fertilizer is largely responsible for the massive red tide events that have poisoned Florida waterways, summer after summer - though this year we got a break - killing uncountable numbers of fish, manatees, dolphins, birds, and destroying economic activity as well.

Habitat loss is a top reason for extinction, and development is a top reason for habitat loss. These statements aren't controversial.

For the benefit of the intelligence-impared, I have not made any claims. I have merely pointed out that you have the burden to prove your claims. Making further claims does not in any way support your priority unproven claims.

You don't generally ask someone to "prove" that the sky is blue, or that water quenches thirst. You only ask people to "prove" claims you find to be outside of your set of beliefs. So I guess let me ask you this - do you find it outside your set of beliefs, that human development causes habitat loss and otherwise harms the environment and wildlife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

Care to explain why the rare natural ecosystems found in Florida have been decimated in less than 200 years if not for the extraction of profit by the wealthy political class? Is that wealthy political class in Florida widely known to be liberal or conservative? Is it regarded as corrupt, or mostly just?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It's not up to me to present a counterpoint first.

Are you really saying with a straight face that you think development - residential and commercial - hasn't had devastating effects on, just for one example, the Everglades?

We now have more proof that fertilizer is largely responsible for the massive red tide events that have poisoned Florida waterways, summer after summer - though this year we got a break - killing uncountable numbers of fish, manatees, dolphins, birds, and destroying economic activity as well.

Habitat loss is a top reason for extinction, and development is a top reason for habitat loss. These statements aren't controversial.

^ And here, read some of these articles about what Big Sugar does to Florida's environment: https://www.google.com/search?q=big+sugar+florida+environment&oq=big+sugar+florida+environment&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i546l4.4075j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The first link of the search results contradicts with some of your claims. Go read it. Being ignorant is okay, but it's not okay to be ignorant yet confident of your strong claim to moral superiority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

Care to explain why the rare natural ecosystems found in Florida have been decimated in less than 200 years if not for the extraction of profit by the wealthy political class? Is that wealthy political class in Florida widely known to be liberal or conservative? Is it regarded as corrupt, or mostly just?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It's not up to me to present a counterpoint first.

Are you really saying with a straight face that you think development - residential and commercial - hasn't had devastating effects on, just for one example, the Everglades?

We now have more proof that fertilizer is largely responsible for the massive red tide events that have poisoned Florida waterways, summer after summer - though this year we got a break - killing uncountable numbers of fish, manatees, dolphins, birds, and destroying economic activity as well.

Habitat loss is a top reason for extinction, and development is a top reason for habitat loss. These statements aren't controversial.

For the benefit of the intelligence-impared, I have not made any claims. I have merely pointed out that you have the burden to prove your claims. Making further claims does not in any way support your priority unproven claims.

You don't generally ask someone to "prove" that the sky is blue, or that water quenches thirst. You only ask people to "prove" claims you find to be outside of your set of beliefs. So I guess let me ask you this - do you find it outside your set of beliefs, that human development causes habitat loss and otherwise harms the environment and wildlife?

The PP didn't claim the sky is blue. The claims made are outside of common trivial knowledge. In fact the link of a Google search offered as "proof", which is laughable on its own, contradicts some of the PP's claims. Again, the person making the claim has burden of proof. I have not made any claims and nor will I be baited into making a claim. I do not have to make a counterpoint to show that the PP's claims have no basis in facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have some family friends who moved to a very wealthy retirement community. They pay $60k a year for home insurance right now.

They must live in a multimillion-dollar home close to the ocean in a high wind zone.

I live in a small house, about 25 miles inland, and I pay about 1/40th of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only one places I’d consider in FL are either the Naples or Miami areas. I’d need to be near the ocean breeze, otherwise it wouldn’t work for me.

I like St. Pete.

I live in St Pete - it's a really really nice place. A blue city in a purple district, too, FWIW. I recently put out my Crist and Demmings yard signs.

I stand with you in ft lauderdale. Can’t wait to proudly vote democratic

[Anonymous]

People who rave about Florida beaches need to get our more - the beaches are disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who rave about Florida beaches need to get our more - the beaches are disgusting.

You’ve been to all of them? Florida has over a thousand miles of coastline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who rave about Florida beaches need to get our more - the beaches are disgusting.

You’ve been to all of them? Florida has over a thousand miles of coastline.

That's just, like, your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who rave about Florida beaches need to get our more - the beaches are disgusting.

???

Are you High?

Or, more likely, are you Low?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

Care to explain why the rare natural ecosystems found in Florida have been decimated in less than 200 years if not for the extraction of profit by the wealthy political class? Is that wealthy political class in Florida widely known to be liberal or conservative? Is it regarded as corrupt, or mostly just?

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It's not up to me to present a counterpoint first.

“An overall score of 45%, fair, for the Florida Everglades is concerning. This means that the ecosystems of the Everglades are struggling to support the plants and animals that live there and the natural services they provide to people. Without healthy ecosystems, the economy, tourism, and recreational activities of south Florida suffer.”
https://evergladesecohealth.org/health/overall/

“A pattern of political and financial motivation, and a lack of understanding of the geography and ecology of the Everglades have plagued the history of drainage projects….
The first attempt to drain the region was made by real estate developer Hamilton Disston in 1881. Disston's sponsored canals were unsuccessful, but the land he purchased for them stimulated economic and population growth that attracted railway developer Henry Flagler. Flagler built a railroad along the east coast of Florida and eventually to Key West; towns grew and farmland was cultivated along the rail line.

During his 1904 campaign to be elected governor, Napoleon Bonaparte Broward promised to drain the Everglades, and his later projects were more effective than Disston's. Broward's promises sparked a land boom facilitated by blatant errors in an engineer's report, pressure from real estate developers, and the burgeoning tourist industry throughout south Florida. The increased population brought hunters who went unchecked and had a devastating impact on the numbers of wading birds (hunted for their plumes), alligators, and other Everglades animals.“


“Wading birds were a particular target. Their feathers were used in women's hats from the late 19th century until the 1920s. In 1886, five million birds were estimated to have been killed for their feathers.[43] They were usually shot in the spring, when their feathers were colored for mating and nesting. Aigrettes, as the plumes were called in the millinery business, sold in 1915 for $32 an ounce, also the price of gold.[42] Millinery was a $17-million-a-year industry[44] that motivated plume harvesters to lie in wait at the nests of egrets and other large birds during the nesting season, shoot the parents with small-bore rifles, and leave the chicks to starve.[42] Many hunters refused to participate after watching the gruesome results of a plume hunt.[42][45] Still, plumes from Everglades wading birds could be found in Havana, New York City, London, and Paris. A dealer in New York paid at least 60 hunters to provide him with "almost anything that wore feathers, but particularly the Herons, Spoonbills, and showy birds". Hunters could collect plumes from a hundred birds on a good day.[46]”

[Anonymous]

My mind is already there, every morning it sees itself in Florida, but my body remains stuck in the morbid realm that is the DC MSA.