Where to live?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Dude, everything I said there was based on normalising to population.

My point exactly. Normalizing is stupid since if I have a tiny population then suddenly I can have huge percentages by just adding a few individuals. If I have a population in the hundreds of millions then it becomes much harder though the other smaller percentage clearly contains many, many more individuals and a much more dynamic environment thus making it far more cosmopolitan. That's why Toronto is less cosmopolitan and less interesting then LA or New York.

One place has millions of any given type the other has hundreds of thousands. The first place is far more dynamic for that group while the other is far less dynamic. That's why absolute numbers are far more important then retarded serves of percentages of population. Absolute numbers are everything.

[Asher]

Dude...New York can be considered cosmopolitan.
But LA? No ****ing way. Ghetto.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Asher

I'll idly note that Oerdin accidentally sent me a PM complaining about Asher's postings as of late. Pretty classic.

I'd post it here for y'alls enjoyment, but that's a bannable offense.

That IS pretty funny.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Asher, lay off the Jew thing.

[Dinner]

Post it for everyone's enjoyment you little gay bastard.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Oerdin


My point exactly. Normalizing is stupid since if I have a tiny population then suddenly I can have huge percentages by just adding a few individuals. If I have a population in the hundreds of millions then it becomes much harder though the other smaller percentage clearly contains many, many more individuals and a much more dynamic environment thus making it far more cosmopolitan. That's why Toronto is less cosmopolitan and less interesting then LA or New York.

One place has millions of any given type the other has hundreds of thousands. The first place is far more dynamic for that group while the other is far less dynamic. That's why absolute numbers are far more important then retarded serves of percentages of population. Absolute numbers are everything.

I just thought I'd point out, for maybe the fifth time, that Toronto does have more non-Latin American immigrants IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS than all of greater LA (yes, all five counties). Even KH's numbers, which though the same as mine, you somehow think are more valid, show that. And given that it's 1/3rd the size, that would make it vastly more cosmopolitan in most people's estimation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Calling 3rd-grade level sentence and paragraph structure juvenile is more than fitting. If you are confused by my wording, consider looking up "juvenile" in the dictionary.

that is NOT what I was referring to.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oerdin


My point exactly. Normalizing is stupid since if I have a tiny population then suddenly I can have huge percentages by just adding a few individuals. If I have a population in the hundreds of millions then it becomes much harder though the other smaller percentage clearly contains many, many more individuals and a much more dynamic environment thus making it far more cosmopolitan. That's why Toronto is less cosmopolitan and less interesting then LA or New York.

One place has millions of any given type the other has hundreds of thousands. The first place is far more dynamic for that group while the other is far less dynamic. That's why absolute numbers are far more important then retarded serves of percentages of population. Absolute numbers are everything.

So a fictitious city of 10 million with 300K of ethnic minorities is more "cosmopolitan" than the city of 1 million with 295 K of ethnic minorities. I would have simply called it " bigger"

Since cosmopolitan means (among other things)



. free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; at home all over the world.

--Having constituent elements from all over the world or from many different parts of the world: the ancient and cosmopolitan societies of Syria and Egypt

--------------------------

I would have thought that the ratios and percentages would matter as well in assessing how "cosmopolitan" a place is. I have a tough time thinking of any city, no matter how large , as being particularly cosmopolitan if 90 % of its population are of one ethnicity.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
that is NOT what I was referring to.

As luck would have it, it's exactly what I was referring to.

[Perfection]

Maybe it's not either! Maybe it's both a combination of havin' ethnic minorities and size!

[Dinner]

Kontiki, I'm continuing to say Latin America is a very diverse place with Mexicans being very different from Central Americans, which are very different from Venezuelans, which are very different from Cubans, which are very different from Brazilians, which is extremely different from Argentines. I'm say that not only does LA stomp on Toronto in absolute numbers but that it also stomps on it in relatively interesting numbers. Further more since people have more money, open more restaurants & clubs that every immigrant & child of an immigrant is more interesting and more viable then Toronto. There is just so much more to see and do as exampled by the higher euntrapronurialism rate. Toronto is nice but not even on the same level as LA. LA pwns the hell out of Toronto in regular business, in international business, in tourism, in just plain interesting things to see & do, and as a place to live. Even with LA's crappy traffic. Toronto isn't on the elite level LA is on. It's on a nice middle of the road level maybe even the top of the middle of the road level but not on the elite level places like LA and New York are on. Those are massively well known international cities and Toronto is a bit regional city. That's just the way it is.

[Asher]

Oerdin, you're being really retarded here.

[lord of the mark]

actually wtf is it with all Latin Americans being alike? talk about ethnocentrism .....

[Dinner]

Take a look at the number of anything found in Greater LA then compare the number found in Greater Toronto. You will almost always find that LA offers more choices and better choices. That is what being cosmopolitan means. LA beats Toronto because there are so many more people and choice in LA compared to Toronto. That's just a fact.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Take a look at the number of anything found in Greater LA then compare the number found in Greater Toronto. You will almost always find that LA offers more choices and better choices.

1) pollution
2) traffic
3) rape
4) murder
5) guns
6) lack of greenspace
7) lack of "walkability" of the city
8) lack of a real transit system
etc

That is what being cosmopolitan means.

Look up the word in a dictionary.