 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
CCinAZ
Posts:19
 | | 01/11/2008 11:51 AM |
 Alert | | Seems like Denna is someone knowledgeable in Economics. | | | |
|
| | RichTig
Posts:0
| | 01/11/2008 11:53 AM |
Alert | Parts of Maricopa ARE blighted slum! And so are parts of Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Phoenix and pretty much any other city.
| | | |
|
| | alanf
Posts:1582
| | 01/11/2008 12:14 PM |
Alert | Posted By CliffinAZ on 01/11/2008 11:50 AM
Denna, Denna, Denna...
Firstly, stereotyping is a mechanism that is part of bigotry, as opposed to an unrelated concept, which you seem to imply.
Secondly, let's take your definition.
Bigot: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
And yes, your stereotypes were related to a specific group, just not a racial or religious one. Obviously you've never heard of the definition of a socio-economic group.
You're throwing definitions about a largely psychological concept around to someone who has a Ph.D. in psychology, with a large concentration of that education and study being in social psychology.
Also, yes, there might be some people living on social security or welfare in a blghted area/slum. The part that makes you a definite bigot is that you're applying that stereotype to EVERYBODY who lives there, and further saying that therefore every one of those people should have no rights, and you should be able to evict them wholesale, and bulldoze their houses. Because every person living in that part of the town must be a deadbeat and must not deserve any of the money they are using to pay their mortgage in the first place. And how does that NOT make you a bigot?
Cliff, I'm thinking that Denna comes from a childhood in the slums. She has already stated that she is a "Minority" and that her husband is a "Black Man."
I believe that they want desperately to climb from their inherited socio-economic deprevity. They were probably unable to afford a "Nice Home in a Nice Area" in the "City." Moving to Maricopa gave them an avenue to "New Home" status. Denna is now bitter about the "City" status not coming along with the "New Home" status. This forum is an outlet for her "Compartmentalized" pain.
I truly feel sorry for this misunderstood soul. Perhaps you could give her a few sessions to help her through these trying times?
I have no idea what I just said, but it sounds pretty cool.  | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:406
| | 01/11/2008 12:26 PM |
Alert | Posted By RichTig on 01/11/2008 11:53 AM
Parts of Maricopa ARE blighted slum! And so are parts of Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Phoenix and pretty much any other city.
That's definitely true of NY City, where I was living before coming to AZ. I don't think anyone there ever seriously suggested that the city should deal with those problems by bulldozing the homes/apartments/projects and making everyone in them homeless. | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:406
| | 01/11/2008 12:32 PM |
Alert | Sorry Alan, I'm an organizational psychologist--I don't do psychotherapy.  | | | |
|
| | Denna
Posts:0
| | 01/11/2008 12:33 PM |
Alert | Posted By bizybeth on 01/11/2008 11:28 AM
I am not even going to begin to say how many things are wrong with that post, "Denna".
Who ARE you anyway?
either: 1. You are someone just pumping up posts to get traffic here
2. Have nothing better to do
3. Seriously believe your own delusions and are in need of help
You have been posting here 6 months now and have averaged ~72.6 posts per month or more than two per day.
I have been here 2 months with just over 110 posts somewhere around 57 posts a month and less than 2 a day.
Since you post more than me by about 20%, are you just here to pump up posts and get traffic or is it that you have nothing better to do? | | | |
|
|  | bizybeth
Posts:569
| | 01/11/2008 12:41 PM |
Alert | Plenty to do, see I can multi-task, whereas your song and dance is a one hit wonder.
Also, my posts run the gamut and I participate in many threads, not just ones bashing BIG COW or the city.
You go to extremes, like others on here just looking for the attention factor, shock factor or some other extreme factor. Just doesn't sound real, bona fide, legitimate, (care to provide us with dictionary.com-isms for those?)
Hmmmm, must've hit a sore spot--lashing out at the truth is so transparent, Denna.
| |
 | |
|
| | NEZ
Posts:515
| | 01/11/2008 12:47 PM |
Alert | Posted By bizybeth on 01/11/2008 12:41 PM
Plenty to do, see I can multi-task, whereas your song and dance is a one hit wonder.
Also, my posts run the gamut and I participate in many threads, not just ones bashing BIG COW or the city.
You go to extremes, like others on here just looking for the attention factor, shock factor or some other extreme factor. Just doesn't sound real, bona fide, legitimate, (care to provide us with dictionary.com-isms for those?)
Hmmmm, must've hit a sore spot--lashing out at the truth is so transparent, Denna.
What exactly do you think you've won?? All you've proven, is that you can't debate ideas...only the poster. | |
AmyG steals lil' nick nacks from your home.
Don't let AmyG in your house. | |
|
| | Bionicbunny
Posts:608
| | 01/11/2008 12:47 PM |
Alert | Posted By DesertDweller on 01/11/2008 11:20 AM Posted By Bionicbunny on 01/11/2008 11:16 AM
As far as the slums. The city should have an ordinance that anyone with trash in their yard that is visible from the street should be fined. Anyone who's home is an eyesore (chipping paint, tall weeds, porches that are falling down) should be fined by the city also. Come one people, how do you expect more people to want to come in and fill up these homes that are for sale? Any perspective buyers that see the neglect in these slummy areas will just keep on driving through and soon you will be living in a ghost town. I thought that's what HOA's were for.
I don't think that "the slums" in question are covered by an HOA. Even so the city should still have some regulations on what is acceptable regardless of what the HOA says. If an HOA has no rule for rusted, non functioning cars littering your front yard, it doesn't mean that this city shouldn't have some pride and make you get rid of them or store them out of sight. That's something that is going to have an effect on how properties are valued in that area! | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2562
| | 01/11/2008 1:20 PM |
Alert | Bionic, I agree that there should be some standards of minimum appearance, especially as it relates to safety and the environment. If someone has an old refrigerator in the yard, that's a safety hazard. Old cars can be. Tires full of water are an environmental concern (mosquitoes). These should be regulated by the city and my guess is that there are more than enough ordinances on the books to address many of these issues.
If a group of people want to get together and agree to paint their house the same color and have the same landscaping, they are free to do that. Even where there is no HOA, there should be health and safety standards, and I believe that there are. However, it's quite a different thing to go into a neighborhood that's a hundred years old and tell people how to live.
Here's my question: What happened to freedom of choice? Individual preference. What if I desire to live in a manufactured home with and old overstuffed chair on the front porch? Should that really be against the law? What if I do it in a neighborhood away from yours?
Should anything that I personally find visually offensive be against the law? I absolutely hate seeing someone walking down the street with two-thirds of their boxer shorts showing above their saggy pants. Should they be cited and fined?
I am from a generation that didn't really value tattoos or body piercing. It hurts when I see a nose ring. Should there be a law to preclude your having those things because I don't like to look at them?
Should everyone be required to paint their house tan, beige, sand, or taupe? Conformity and compliance is one thing. Legislating out individuality is quite another.
Denna, there was a time when black people were not welcome in certain neighborhoods. Conformity and compliance in those days didn't necessarily apply to the color of ones house but it did apply to the color of ones skin. That was one brand of bigotry. Systematically excluding people and generalizing them because of their economic status is another. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | CCinAZ
Posts:19
| | 01/11/2008 1:24 PM |
Alert | Posted By CliffinAZ on 01/11/2008 12:32 PM Sorry Alan, I'm an organizational psychologist--I don't do psychotherapy.
Denna is not in need of a psychotherapist, as she is simply stating her valid opinion on a clearly debatable subject. | | | |
|
| | bizybeth
Posts:569
| | 01/11/2008 1:25 PM |
Alert | Posted By NEZ on 01/11/2008 12:47 PM Posted By bizybeth on 01/11/2008 12:41 PM
Plenty to do, see I can multi-task, whereas your song and dance is a one hit wonder.
Also, my posts run the gamut and I participate in many threads, not just ones bashing BIG COW or the city.
You go to extremes, like others on here just looking for the attention factor, shock factor or some other extreme factor. Just doesn't sound real, bona fide, legitimate, (care to provide us with dictionary.com-isms for those?)
Hmmmm, must've hit a sore spot--lashing out at the truth is so transparent, Denna.
What exactly do you think you've won?? All you've proven, is that you can't debate ideas...only the poster.
Must've hit home with you too NEZ.
I can debate ideas well, and I have spoken my piece about big cow, the fires, etc.
I just am a bit leery of a poster who denies posting to increase traffic, but then bothers to do the math on the stats for people's post history. Interesting. | |
| |
|
| | RichTig
Posts:0
| | 01/11/2008 1:27 PM |
Alert | Posted By DesertDweller on 01/11/2008 1:20 PM
Bionic, I agree that there should be some standards of minimum appearance, especially as it relates to safety and the environment. If someone has an old refrigerator in the yard, that's a safety hazard. Old cars can be. Tires full of water are an environmental concern (mosquitoes). These should be regulated by the city and my guess is that there are more than enough ordinances on the books to address many of these issues.
If a group of people want to get together and agree to paint their house the same color and have the same landscaping, they are free to do that. Even where there is no HOA, there should be health and safety standards, and I believe that there are. However, it's quite a different thing to go into a neighborhood that's a hundred years old and tell people how to live.
Here's my question: What happened to freedom of choice? Individual preference. What if I desire to live in a manufactured home with and old overstuffed chair on the front porch? Should that really be against the law? What if I do it in a neighborhood away from yours?
Should anything that I personally find visually offensive be against the law? I absolutely hate seeing someone walking down the street with two-thirds of their boxer shorts showing above their saggy pants. Should they be cited and fined?
I am from a generation that didn't really value tattoos or body piercing. It hurts when I see a nose ring. Should there be a law to preclude your having those things because I don't like to look at them?
Should everyone be required to paint their house tan, beige, sand, or taupe? Conformity and compliance is one thing. Legislating out individuality is quite another.
Denna, there was a time when black people were not welcome in certain neighborhoods. Conformity and compliance in those days didn't necessarily apply to the color of ones house but it did apply to the color of ones skin. That was one brand of bigotry. Systematically excluding people and generalizing them because of their economic status is another.
Oh god. You just knew that someone was going to throw the 'race-card'. | | | |
|
| | Denna
Posts:0
| | 01/11/2008 1:41 PM |
Alert | Dear Cliff,
You are a PhD and you don't think people have bulldozed public housing? Maybe you should have gone to a better school.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/entries/2007/02/15/post_50.html
While this example isn't from NYC, I know as a fact this has happened in New York City more times than you can count. It doesn't just get suggested, it gets done. How are the 10,000 people in that story going to get nice new homes once their projects are bulldozed? You are a PhD and you think people on SS and welfare only "might be" living in slums? How about definitely are? I never said every single person was, it was a generalization because people are.
I happen to know a little bit about sociology and psychology myself. Do you think societal norms are pro living in an area full of cow and chicken offensive odors? No. The norm is to live in clean, fresh air as most of us want and expect. Do you think societal norms are pro trash and junk in yard or against? Do you think societal NORMS are for improving conditions or reverbiating their neighborhoods into slums.
Finally, you stated about 10 things that I never said about the slums. I never said to bulldoze them or evict them. I never said anything about the rights of the people living there. In California, they have a law where people will get heavily fined if their house paint is chipping as well as trash/junk ordinances. That is what I recommend. In Tucson, they have quaint old town areas with nicely maintained old houses that I could walk through any time of the day or night and feel safe. In Maricopa, ours are exclusively slummy. If you disagree, show us by taking a walk through there with your wife and kids at midnight. Better yet, let your wife and kids walk through alone if you feel so confident.
Lets go over to Maui Wowi and discuss this this evening over a hot cup of joe. | | | |
|
| | bizybeth
Posts:569
| | | gilbertglcn
Posts:223
| | 01/11/2008 1:54 PM |
Alert | | This is in reference to the comments Mayor Anderson had for 85239.com concerning the City being cited for having too many people in the meeting area when they held this meeting. As a result, they were issued a citation, and the Mayor thinks that action is unfair. This is just another instance where the City Leaders did not think through all of the implications of their actions. Then they get caught and blame everyone else. This is why we need new leadership, not incompetent ones we have now. Ignorance is not appropriate here, because the expectation is that once an ignorant person is shown what is correct, they change. The City Leaders have been given years to do this right, and they still cannot do it right. Blaming the Fire Department for something that City Administration did not bother to run it past anyone just shows how petty our leaders are. Mayor Anderson, you owe the Fire Department an apology, it is your City Manager's staff's job to know how to conduct proper meetings. Then you go and blame the fire department for not talking to you. Would that not be favoritism, as any business owner could use that in defense of not getting a citation. Mr. Anderson, wake up, you are running a very incompetent group out there, and one of these days it will literally cause harm to those you are in office to serve. You should be ashamed for not standing up as a leader of this community should. You should be ashamed for wanting preferential treatment. | | | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 01/11/2008 2:07 PM |
Alert | Posted By Denna on 01/11/2008 1:41 PM
Finally, you stated about 10 things that I never said about the slums. I never said to bulldoze them or evict them.
Never huh? Then who posted this?
Posted By Denna on 12/03/2007 12:48 PM
OK. You all have me convinced. How about if the city just levels the ugly red barn, the trailor dealer, the smelly dead cow processing factory, and some of the older buildings.
Thread
Got too many alters going? | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | bizybeth
Posts:569
| | 01/11/2008 2:10 PM |
Alert | | She even referenced it in that same thread above where she claims to have never said it. | |
| |
|
| | Bionicbunny
Posts:608
| | 01/11/2008 2:13 PM |
Alert | Posted By DesertDweller on 01/11/2008 1:20 PM
Here's my question: What happened to freedom of choice? Individual preference. What if I desire to live in a manufactured home with and old overstuffed chair on the front porch? Should that really be against the law? What if I do it in a neighborhood away from yours?
Should anything that I personally find visually offensive be against the law?
You have freedom of choice when it comes to things that effect you.
We are talking about people in a city that don't want the value of their homes going down even more because you think it's ok to never repaint your home and have an old ripped oversuffed chair your porch that can be seen by someone driving down the street. I'm saying that there should be ordanances regarding these things like there is in so many other places. People are concerned in Maricopa, and rightly so, that their home values are on a downward spiral. There are so many homes for sale in the resale market and there are countless new homes with more being built every day. Do you think it will be just as easy to sell the house next to the "slums" as it will where things are kept up nicely? Now if you have a 6 ft wall around your backyard and you choose to load it with crap, more power to you, but when it can be seen by passers by it becomes about more than just you and yes it should be illegal. | | | |
|
| | Bionicbunny
Posts:608
| | 01/11/2008 2:16 PM |
Alert | | And DD, saggy pants and nose rings are different. You may not like to see it but it isn't affecting your investments or quality of life is it? | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|