Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "City Beautiful" channel.

  1.  @AliMonsterTV  Why should a driver be responsible for a pedestrian who crosses a road without looking or is distracted by their music or phone? If they care that little about their own well being that they aren't willing to take even the easiest of precautions to protect themselves then that's their problem. I mean how much is that person's life worth to themselves if they can't even be bothered to look both directions before crossing the street? Also pedestrians can see cars coming towards them very easily. Drivers can't always see pedestrians in front of them equally that easy especially when its at night and people are wearing non-reflective clothing. As a personal example last year I was driving home at night on a major street that wasn't too well lit because some of the lights were covered by the branches and leaves of large trees. The green light was in my favor when all of a sudden I see the faint moving legs of a person walking in front of my vehicle. Turns out it was a woman in her 30s or 40s who was so busy talking on her phone that she didn't realise that she was crossing against a green light. Luckily I and the car in front of me weren't going so fast and we both slowed for her without a problem and she finally noticed the light wasn't with her and she ran back to the sidewalk. Now if I or the other driver had struck her even if we were going at a higher speed, why would it be our fault and not this idiot woman's fault who cared so little for her own life that she didn't even bother looking both ways before crossing and realise that the light wasn't with her? I have no problem with holding drivers responsible if they're actually at fault, but we shouldn't give people a pass if they're too stupid and/or lazy to look out for their own well being and they need to be held responsible as well.
    4
  2. 4
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 3
  12.  @c.b.3234  Crime comes from poverty. The US prison system isn't designed to rehabilitate it's designed to create even harder criminals. Ex-cons have the least opportunity of anyone. I think people like you simply don't understand that many, MANY criminals are simply not fit for civilized society no matter how hard you try to rehab them. Many people bring up places like Norway and how they rehab their criminals and I bet you a million dollars right now that if you sent America's most hardcore and dangerous criminals to Norway for rehabilitation using their methods, the Norwegians would quickly realize that they need to keep most of them locked up forever. The fantasy that everyone can be saved doesn't agree with reality where many of these criminals are such horrid human beings that they can NEVER be released into public again if you want to keep innocent people safe. Better to just execute them than to waste any more of earth's resources keeping them alive any longer. Of course a city like Gary is not going to spontaneously turn around because it doesn't even have the infrastructure to support a population - it has little to no grocery stores, schools, and shopping, not to mention the actual city infrastructure itself - meanwhile every neighboring city to the east, west, and south of Gary have all of those things. Places like Gary don't have all that infrastructure because anytime anyone tries to build and maintain such things, the people there quickly plunder and destroy it. You could pour a trillion dollars into Gary and build that city up to be new and having everything people need to live a decent life there and then come back in 5 years and see most of it looted and destroyed because that's what most of those people do. On the otherhand you could remove the entire population of Gary and replace them with Japanese people and come back in 5 years and see how quickly it has grown simply because some people in the world can adapt to whatever environment they're given and find a way to improve and make things better by working together towards a common goal. Now it just suffers from the after effects of what I already explained and its entrenched bad reputation from people like you that make up Amerikkka. The bad reputation that America has mostly comes from the demographic that can't settle anywhere on the planet in any significant numbers without bringing huge amounts of crime, violence and other problems with them. As I said China is the only exception to this rule where a large black population is mostly peaceful and non-violent because they know the Chinese don't tolerate their bad behaviors like they do in the west. That's why most of them stay in line there and don't cause much trouble. Of course Gary is predominately black because that's what the historical conditions mandated. Where the fuck else were 20th century black people going to live? As someone else said Gary CAN become a good place to live if the people living there want to work towards that goal. Unfortunately few people there right now want to do that and instead prefer to let things turn to utter crap. It doesn't matter if you move them all to Beverly Hills and give them all mansions, they'll still turn that area into crap with high crime rates. On the otherhand if you bring a decent, peaceful hardworking population to a place like Gary or Detroit or East St. Louis, they'll turn those places into safe communities that others want to move to.
    3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22.  @AliMonsterTV  Again I don't disagree that drivers have a responsibility when they're on the road, but I simply dislike that pedestrians are given a complete pass on their often stupid decisions and their seemingly lack of care for their own life. Keeping people safe should be a SHARED RESPONSIBILITY and we shouldn't be absolving pedestrians of all their idiocy and mistakes. Also I simply don't understand if you're a person that loves life and wants to live for a very long time that you would do the very thing that goes completely against that. Namely purposely choosing to not do the simple thing of paying attention when crossing a street and drastically lowering your chances of becoming an accident victim. It costs you nothing but a few seconds of your time and attention to save yourself alot of potential pain or even death and if a person can't be bothered to do that bare minimum to keep themselves safe then why should I give a damn about that person's life? And to your deadly weapon analogy, I don't completely agree. As I said before a driver can only be so careful and avoid so much and yet often that isn't enough when pedestrians do unpredictable things. I think its unfair to blame drivers if they're driving normally and being as attentive and safe as they can and then a pedestrian walks in front of their vehicle and gets hit and the driver gets blamed. I guarantee you that if all pedestrians were attentive and alert while crossing a street, even if all the drivers on the roads were horrible the chances of those pedestrians getting hit would still be very low. Why? Because you're paying attention and are able to see incoming threats coming towards you and therefore you have a better chance at avoiding those threats. If you're not paying attention then you have no chance at all which is what is happening far too often, but the pro-pedestrian crowd doesn't want to admit.
    3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43.  @Ciph3rzer0  Dude do you not understand that crime can be 'declining' when fewer crimes are reported and recorded? Sure you can't ignore shootings and murders and such, but there are lesser things like assaults that don't result in serious injuries and muggings and the like that are often not reported by the victim because they don't feel like going through the hassle and also when they believe its likely not going to be solved. I live in Toronto and people keep saying 'crime is down' or that 'its still a very safe city'. That may be true for the most part, but if you look at the number of shootings that happen every year, in 2014 and before Toronto was averaging about 200 shootings a year. In 2016 and ever since then Toronto has been averaging 400+ shootings a year including setting a historic record high almost 500 shootings in 2019. So for Toronto they've had 5 CONSECUTIVE YEARS of 400+ shootings with 2021 looking to make it 6 straight and you're telling me 'crime is going down'?!?!? Maybe that's true for some cities, but it certainly isn't the case in Toronto and we haven't even talked about the hundreds of stabbings that happen as well. And the other thing is the public aren't allowed to even know WHO is committing all this violence and crime. In 2019 Toronto police stated they would start collecting race based data again after being prevented from doing so for almost 30 years because a certain demographic got upset. I was looking forward to seeing the stats this year and what Toronto police released in their 'report' was a whole bunch of bullshit that included ZERO ACTUAL CRIME STATISTICS. You know like what the US government releases that shows which race committed the most murders, violent crimes and so on. Toronto police released NONE of that and I'm pretty sure we all know why because in the age of BLM where we have to pretend a certain group of people are victims, its hard to keep that lie going if police release hard data that shows the opposite. The bottom line is maybe there are some cities that are having a decline in crime, violence and murder, but that certainly isn't the case for Toronto where the stats don't lie and even in super left leaning places like the Toronto subreddit, even THOSE ultra progressive people are complaining about how the city is getting less safe.
    2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49.  @Zalis116  In most major US cities in the mid-20th century, there would be run-down slum areas mainly inhabited by Blacks and other minorities. Slums are created by the people who live there, not by the location. Interesting how most minority groups can create communities to serve their own population when they first arrive to a foreign nation and yet a couple of other demographics of people turn every place they settle in into violent, criminal areas that force people to move out if they value their lives and their properties. Since these new suburbs didn't want public transit networks giving minorities access to their communities, urban freeways were the solution for connecting suburban residents to jobs in downtown cores. I think generally its less a conspiracy to build less transit to keep minorities out of wealthier suburban areas and more about people who were earning more money preferring to buy vehicles to drive themselves around than use public transit. the white population moved to the new suburbs, fearing crime or "moral decay" or whatever. And guess what? They were proven 100% right in so many cities where a certain demographic of people is consistently turning every area they move into in large numbers into violent and dangerous places to live. But hey if you refuse to live around people who would do you harm YOU'RE the problem and not those criminals and violent people. Heck this isn't even just white people, but plenty of non-white people as well who don't want to have themselves or their families to live in such violent areas with such dangerous people.
    2
  50.  @Zalis116  Sometimes locations do create slum conditions, as with NYC's 5 Points neighborhood -- it was on the site of a filled-in lake, which led to buildings sinking, methane leaks, poor drainage, and diseases stemming from standing water and mosquitoes. The condition of an area might create slum conditions, but it doesn't create violent and criminal people. You can live in poverty and NOT turn to violence and crime and turn your neighborhoods into dangerous places to live in addition to being poor. All you have to do is look at the countless poor areas all across Asia where hundreds of millions of people live in far, FAR worse poverty and squalor than anyone in any western city does outside of the homeless and you'll see that poverty didn't make all those people turn to violence and crime. Rather than turning to crime, the vast majority of those people simply want a job that can support their families and makes enough money so that their children can get a proper education. And yet in the west certain demographics of people have education, decent housing and other social services handed to them on a silver platter and still they find a way to screw things up and be largely unable to lift themselves out of poverty and crime. My point is that these perceptions and fears, whether they were true or not, played a major role in the development patterns of US cities and freeways, and that their absence explains why things turned out differently in Europe and other more racially-homogeneous places The thing is in most cases these fears WERE TRUE and the statistics have shown this to be fact. No one like living around violent and criminal people and when your area turns to crap where your family and property is no longer safe, then you leave. Its interesting to me that there's only one or two groups of people who consistently ruin places that they populate in large numbers and then cry about racism when others decide to leave for someplace safer. Well if you don't want people leaving then its simple. STOP BEING SO VIOLENT AND CRIMINAL. We have people from all corners of the earth living in the US, Canada and other western nations and its ALWAYS the same couple of groups who have the most problems living peacefully in any country that they settle in significant numbers. Also with regards to many US cities and how they grew to have so much sprawl while the car certainly aided in that, the real reason is that it all comes down to the huge amounts of space available in North America in comparison to Europe and elsewhere. When you have vast amounts of land to build on, people aren't going to be mindful of not wasting it by building with more density rather than just plowing over new areas of land to build on. Imagine if the US mainland wasn't one single country, but instead where each state was its own individual nation, I guarantee you that almost every one of these new nations would be high density because they're FORCED to be. When you no longer have tons of space to waste, you conserve what you have.
    2