Re: Re: Fast-Track Infrastructure legislation
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Even if as in your view rural stereotypes are generated here (which I don’t accept), instead of being mature about it and contesting the alleged stereotyping etc, you just chuck it straight back in the form of urban stereotypes – and so the cycle continues.
Graham, I respect your balanced response, but I would disagree with you with regard to the use of stereotypes of rural people. I refer you to the Ballymun thread. Some of the material the therein being little more than rampant invective. I can provide you with ample quotes if it helps focus things a little.
As regards my throwing back urban stereotypes and doing little more, allow me to make one observation. I have made systematic efforts to construct arguments that overthrow some of the unsubstantiated generalizations that are thrown around here. In the Eoghan Harris thread, I challenged anyone to give me concrete economic data that proves that the average one-off house dweller is more of a net financial burden on the state than an average city/town dweller (this being one of the primary accusations made against one-off housing dwellers). I am still waiting to see such a definitive data. Despite all of the expertise that ctesiphon claims exists, not one person has given a definitive and substantiated answer to this. In the meantime, the stereotype continues to be propagated ad nauseum.
In a similar vein, the steroetype of the one-off house dweller as an SUV driving road hog was also challenged – I rpovided evidence that in the UK at least, it is actually the urban dweller who is more likely to possess an environmentally unfriendly SUV. Given the socio-cultural similarities between here and the UK, it is a fair assumption to assume a similar pattern of vehicle ownership exists in the Republic. Did anyone acknowledge that this somewhat debunks the stereotype vitriolically thrown around in the Ballymun and Eoghan Harris threads. No.
So am I doing little more than propagating urban stereotypes or am I trying to highlight the inadequacies in some of the commentaries so frivolously bandied about here? Am I trying to set the record straight by expressing opinions that seem alien to a number of contributors but are nonetheless valid.
For some to accuse me of ‘trolling’ and of not actually believing in what I say is rich given that it is well known that some commentators have spawned multiple identities (6 in one particular instance) in archiseek in order to generate a number of opinions in a duplicitous manner. If it is petty to defend myself in that regard, then it seems I cannot win. Whether my opinion is popular or ‘politically correct’ in 21st centruy planning circles is irrelevant, it is an opinion that has sought to validly expose a number of falacious discrepancies and imbalances in a number of posts made here.