so, the retort is "Whatevs, you're just jealous"

Way to grow past high school.

Anonymous wrote:Those that complain about "excess" and carbon footprints want everyone living in housing like this so we are ALL equal



http://kommunalka.colgate.edu/cfm/essays.cfm?ClipID=376&TourID=900

Not quite right. They want everyone living in a house the size of a typical 1940s house in AU Park or Silver Spring. If we bid up the price of those perfectly-sized houses in the process, so that they can build a bigger nest egg than their current jobs allow, so much the better.

Those that complain about "excess" and carbon footprints want everyone living in housing like this so we are ALL equal



http://kommunalka.colgate.edu/cfm/essays.cfm?ClipID=376&TourID=900

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly, you sound remarkably obtuse. You fail to understand the grey between the two extremes of "mere subsistence" (your words, originally, not mine) and excess. You are also, as PP noted, blind to the myriad valuaved professions where people work very hard for satisfaction beyond money.

No, I understand the concept of "grey" very well, which is why I don't want people like you deciding whether the soup is too hot or too cold, or my house is too big or just right. Screw your definition of "excess." You want pretty much everyone on the same level, and that inevitably leads to reduced standards of living, not higher ones. It's one reason why people flee oppressive regimes in other countries to come here.

I am familiar with a number of professions (though not a "valuaved" profession) where people work hard for satisfaction beyond money. Is the reward for their efforts the right to restrict how others should live? It's a comment that betrays your resentment. If you enjoy what you do, you should not care how big someone else's house is, unless what really bothers you is the fact that someone else gets paid more for doing something that you think is actually less, or no more, important that what you or your spouse do. Boo hoo.

Nothing you've said indicates that you have a single intelligent bone in your body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, duh. Of course, one doesn't NEED all that space. However, some of us can afford more and do not aspire to mere subsistence. Don't ask us to agree that your blather about carbon footprints is anything other than resentment masquerading as environmental consciousness. Plenty of the people who wax eloquent on this score are more than happy to jet around the globe on fuel-burning planes. And I could give a rat's ass about your organization's "excellent speaker." There are plenty of morons with small houses and swell heads.

So, are you obese like so many ther Americas and simply feel more comfortable in 5000 sq ft home that requires large furniture; insecure about your McMansion tastes; and/or haven't read or traveled widely enough to understand that a home in DC under 5000 sq ft is not "mere subsistence"? Maybe all three?

No one in my family is obese. We don't have "large furniture"; our house has many rooms, but no "great rooms" that cry out for large pieces of furniture. I'm not insecure about our tastes; while people like you resent them, many others share them or aspire to them. The point is not whether anything below 5000 SF is mere subsistence, but whether you have the courage of your convictions and make do with a minimum of space (almost surely not). That being quite obvious, you should probably let others live their lives. Work a little harder and perhaps you can do better yourself.

Honestly, you sound like an idiot. You don't even have a moral high horse to dismount; it's more like a moral donkey.

Honestly, you sound remarkably obtuse. You fail to understand the grey between the two extremes of "mere subsistence" (your words, originally, not mine) and excess. You are also, as PP noted, blind to the myriad valuaved professions where people work very hard for satisfaction beyond money.

wait so how big is your house

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, duh. Of course, one doesn't NEED all that space. However, some of us can afford more and do not aspire to mere subsistence. Don't ask us to agree that your blather about carbon footprints is anything other than resentment masquerading as environmental consciousness. Plenty of the people who wax eloquent on this score are more than happy to jet around the globe on fuel-burning planes. And I could give a rat's ass about your organization's "excellent speaker." There are plenty of morons with small houses and swell heads.

So, are you obese like so many ther Americas and simply feel more comfortable in 5000 sq ft home that requires large furniture; insecure about your McMansion tastes; and/or haven't read or traveled widely enough to understand that a home in DC under 5000 sq ft is not "mere subsistence"? Maybe all three?

No one in my family is obese. We don't have "large furniture"; our house has many rooms, but no "great rooms" that cry out for large pieces of furniture. I'm not insecure about our tastes; while people like you resent them, many others share them or aspire to them. The point is not whether anything below 5000 SF is mere subsistence, but whether you have the courage of your convictions and make do with a minimum of space (almost surely not). That being quite obvious, you should probably let others live their lives. Work a little harder and perhaps you can do better yourself.

Honestly, you sound like an idiot. You don't even have a moral high horse to dismount; it's more like a moral donkey.

Honestly, you sound remarkably obtuse. You fail to understand the grey between the two extremes of "mere subsistence" (your words, originally, not mine) and excess. You are also, as PP noted, blind to the myriad valuaved professions where people work very hard for satisfaction beyond money.

Anonymous wrote:yes, because the answer to it all is "work harder" Working hard ALWAYS = more money.

Jesus, stop listening to Faux News.

Personally, I only listen to Rachel Maddow, and the smaller the house to share with her the better (although I bet she has smelly gym clothes piling up in a corner).

Anonymous wrote:yes, because the answer to it all is "work harder" Working hard ALWAYS = more money.

Jesus, stop listening to Faux News.

Classic. A clueless emoji plus a reference to Fox News = typical smug, ITB dumb-ass.

yes, because the answer to it all is "work harder" Working hard ALWAYS = more money.

Jesus, stop listening to Faux News.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, duh. Of course, one doesn't NEED all that space. However, some of us can afford more and do not aspire to mere subsistence. Don't ask us to agree that your blather about carbon footprints is anything other than resentment masquerading as environmental consciousness. Plenty of the people who wax eloquent on this score are more than happy to jet around the globe on fuel-burning planes. And I could give a rat's ass about your organization's "excellent speaker." There are plenty of morons with small houses and swell heads.

So, are you obese like so many ther Americas and simply feel more comfortable in 5000 sq ft home that requires large furniture; insecure about your McMansion tastes; and/or haven't read or traveled widely enough to understand that a home in DC under 5000 sq ft is not "mere subsistence"? Maybe all three?

No one in my family is obese. We don't have "large furniture"; our house has many rooms, but no "great rooms" that cry out for large pieces of furniture. I'm not insecure about our tastes; while people like you resent them, many others share them or aspire to them. The point is not whether anything below 5000 SF is mere subsistence, but whether you have the courage of your convictions and make do with a minimum of space (almost surely not). That being quite obvious, you should probably let others live their lives. Work a little harder and perhaps you can do better yourself.

Honestly, you sound like an idiot. You don't even have a moral high horse to dismount; it's more like a moral donkey.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3000 SQRFT is still a bit small i would say 3500-4000

Who ARE you people? And the 5,000 sf poster? Seriously!

? Why are you angry? Some of us prefer to live with more space. I would say 10,000 would be ridiculous, 3000-5000 isnt that big.

Sure, it's a preference. But your need to live with more space might anger some people because it uses large quantities of finite resources and contributes more than a smaller house would to climate change.

Climate change doesn't affect my many mansions

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/03/stunning-pictures-al-gores-new-9-million-mansion-media-totally-ignore

Anonymous wrote:
Well, duh. Of course, one doesn't NEED all that space. However, some of us can afford more and do not aspire to mere subsistence. Don't ask us to agree that your blather about carbon footprints is anything other than resentment masquerading as environmental consciousness. Plenty of the people who wax eloquent on this score are more than happy to jet around the globe on fuel-burning planes. And I could give a rat's ass about your organization's "excellent speaker." There are plenty of morons with small houses and swell heads.

So, are you obese like so many ther Americas and simply feel more comfortable in 5000 sq ft home that requires large furniture; insecure about your McMansion tastes; and/or haven't read or traveled widely enough to understand that a home in DC under 5000 sq ft is not "mere subsistence"? Maybe all three?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have family abroad that comes to stay so we need room for them too- basement?

Only if it's walk-out. It's illegal to use basements without proper windows as a bedroom.

Illegal to use them as a bedroom or illegal to market them as having a legal bedroom?

Just wanted to know before I'm carted off to jail for letting friends sleep in the den.

Technically both, but no one cares if you let your friends/mother/kids friends sleep in the den. After we remodeled our house we had all of these people come to do final inspections, and the contractor told us to move a desk into the basement spare bedroom to make it look like an office. It has windows, but they're apparently too small to qualify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure, it's a preference. But your need to live with more space might anger some people because it uses large quantities of finite resources and contributes more than a smaller house would to climate change.

Right, so they should all downsize to a house that just happens to be a size that YOU can afford. Seriously, if you believe this, have one kid or no kids and go live in a fucking cubicle.

it's not about affordability, but you're too pig headed to admit it. My organization had an excellent speaker one year talking about the increase in house sizes and stuff over time. The average house size had increased as family size had gotten smaller. Yet, even with the increased space, people still needed to rent storage lockers for all their crap.

You don't NEED all that space. You just don't. To say nothing of carbon footprints, which is what this previous poster was talking about.

Well, duh. Of course, one doesn't NEED all that space. However, some of us can afford more and do not aspire to mere subsistence. Don't ask us to agree that your blather about carbon footprints is anything other than resentment masquerading as environmental consciousness. Plenty of the people who wax eloquent on this score are more than happy to jet around the globe on fuel-burning planes. And I could give a rat's ass about your organization's "excellent speaker." There are plenty of morons with small houses and swell heads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure, it's a preference. But your need to live with more space might anger some people because it uses large quantities of finite resources and contributes more than a smaller house would to climate change.

Right, so they should all downsize to a house that just happens to be a size that YOU can afford. Seriously, if you believe this, have one kid or no kids and go live in a fucking cubicle.

it's not about affordability, but you're too pig headed to admit it. My organization had an excellent speaker one year talking about the increase in house sizes and stuff over time. The average house size had increased as family size had gotten smaller. Yet, even with the increased space, people still needed to rent storage lockers for all their crap.

You don't NEED all that space. You just don't. To say nothing of carbon footprints, which is what this previous poster was talking about.