777 died in nyc today....while California is at ZERO

[itsyoung!!]

Except I did do that. You fell victim to that dummy's juelzing.

He tried to complain that it was unfair to compare NYC with its 5 burroughs to individual cities...


And the post clowning him for that was what I responded to, and that's what triggered him.
So since it was unfair to compare all of NYC to a single city, I did bring up the ultra densely populated Manhattan:

Of course, @itsjuelz!! then wanted then wants to keep NYC as a single city, but expand the area of other cities...which is retarded and arbitrary and loses the spirit of what's being discussed (the transmission of COVID-19 and ultra densely populated areas).


Dude's whole premise is just stupid. He wants to extend SF beyond the city limits to include the metro area, but only include NYC proper. Utterly retarded. If you extend to the metro areas and compare San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland metro area it has wayyy more land area, yet less people than the NYC metro area (barely more than NYC proper). LA also has a bigger metro land area, yet less people than the NYC metro area.


Given the fact that NYC has over 8 million people in its city proper of 300 sq mi, and the Bay Area has about 9.6 million in its 13,000 sq mi, explain to me why you think this is a true statement.

Ive never wanted to punch someone in the face over a post as much as this

the article is comparing San Francisco metro (which is San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley) and San Jose Metro (San Jose-Santa Clara) to NYC

bay area metropolitan would go from Solano / Napa County (huge land mass in itself, where you see those big fires in the hills) to Santa Clara county

for i dont know, the 5th fukking post referencing the sites and sources going over this that you refuse to read but yet respond to info regarding it its just some weirdo shyt man


Even in the post youre quoting the guy is saying if you compared the same land size of nyc to a land size inside the bay area

you just acting retarded now, i refuse to believe you are truly this stupid

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

the article is comparing San Francisco metro (which is San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley) and San Jose Metro (San Jose-Santa Clara) to NYC

The San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley metro alone is over 2400 sq mi (which in your dumb ass mind is OK to compare to a city of just 300 sq mi, despite claims that it was unfair to compare NYCs 300 sq mi's to other cites of smaller area). Yet doesn't have as much people as NYC proper.

This is why I keep asking your dumb ass to post the land area and population of the "area" you're trying to state is more densely populated than NYC.
I still welcome you to do that, until then, punch yourself in the face, dummy.


Your whole argument is retarded since density is defined per square mile, making the land area wildly irrelevant. In fact, expanding the size of an "area" only serves to lower the total area's density compared to the dense's sections of the city. Stated plainly so that your dumb ass can understand: NYC being larger actually hurts it from a population density perspective.

And you were also spouting off about LA which is bigger city land area wise at 500 sq mi compared to NYC's 300 sq mi

Which brings me back to my original post in this thread:

I swear internet nikkas will argue about ANYTHING.

NYC been the most densely populated city in the US my whole life. LA been known for its sprawl and corresponding traffic. And breh is in here really tryna argue that it’s more densely populated than NYC.

 

[Prodyson]

Except I did do that. You fell victim to that dummy's juelzing.

He tried to complain that it was unfair to compare NYC with its 5 burroughs to individual cities...


And the post clowning him for that was what I responded to, and that's what triggered him.
So since it was unfair to compare all of NYC to a single city, I did bring up the ultra densely populated Manhattan:

Of course, @itsjuelz!! then wanted then wants to keep NYC as a single city, but expand the area of other cities...which is retarded and arbitrary and loses the spirit of what's being discussed (the transmission of COVID-19 and ultra densely populated areas).


Dude's whole premise is just stupid. He wants to extend SF beyond the city limits to include the metro area, but only include NYC proper. Utterly retarded. If you extend to the metro areas and compare San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland metro area it has wayyy more land area, yet less people than the NYC metro area (barely more than NYC proper). LA also has a bigger metro land area, yet less people than the NYC metro area.


Given the fact that NYC has over 8 million people in its city proper of 300 sq mi, and the Bay Area has about 9.6 million in its 13,000 sq mi, explain to me why you think this is a true statement.

Regarding your last question... Because he provided the article that explained it and I read the entire thing. But just like any other statistic, you could keep playing with the numbers to try to make yourself right.

Another thing, in some of your responses you frame them matter of factly and not in the context of the argument. When you mention Manhattan’s density, you didn’t communicate that in a way that implied that the level of density there is so much that it outweighs the comparable densities of NYC and the Bay Area.
You just said it as if you dropped a jewel when you really just sounded like you were switching the argument. Not to mention, people in this thread were also making claims of how Manhattan became less dense and busy once they put the stay at home order in place because “people with money could work from home and hunker down, etc...”. If I recall they were using that as an explanation for why even as the densest in NYC, it did not have the most cases. (I’m not going back to make sure I remembered that correctly though, not worth my time).

How you frame your argument is important

 

[Prodyson]

The San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley metro alone is over 2400 sq mi (which in your dumb ass mind is OK to compare to a city of just 300 sq mi, despite claims that it was unfair to compare NYCs 300 sq mi's to other cites of smaller area). Yet doesn't have as much people as NYC proper.

This is why I keep asking your dumb ass to post the land area and population of the "area" you're trying to state is more densely populated than NYC.
I still welcome you to do that, until then, punch yourself in the face, dummy.


Your whole argument is retarded since density is defined per square mile, making the land area wildly irrelevant. In fact, expanding the size of an "area" only serves to lower the total area's density compared to the dense's sections of the city. Stated plainly so that your dumb ass can understand: NYC being larger actually hurts it from a population density perspective.

And you were also spouting off about LA which is bigger city land area wise at 500 sq mi compared to NYC's 300 sq mi

Which brings me back to my original post in this thread:

This is actually a sound response, except all of the insults make it a less compelling argument. It reads like you’re angry and makes the point seem less poignant. Just make your point and keep it moving.

I don’t care to look into the actual square mileage of all these place because I don’t really care and think this whole argument is irrelevant anyway. I’m just a bystander.

 

[Just like bruddas]

nikkas are always arguing with each other. It never fails

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

Regarding your last question... Because he provided the article that explained it and I read the entire thing. But just like any other statistic, you could keep playing with the numbers to try to make yourself right.

Another thing, in some of your responses you frame them matter of factly and not in the context of the argument. When you mention Manhattan’s density, you didn’t communicate that in a way that implied that the level of density there is so much that it outweighs the comparable densities of NYC and the Bay Area.
You just said it as if you dropped a jewel when you really just sounded like you were switching the argument. Not to mention, people in this thread were also making claims of how Manhattan became less dense and busy once they put the stay at home order in place because “people with money could work from home and hunker down, etc...”. If I recall they were using that as an explanation for why even as the densest in NYC, it did not have the most cases. (I’m not going back to make sure I remembered that correctly though, not worth my time).

How you frame your argument is important

LMAO, more juelzing like your boy. Manhattan becoming less dense because of rich people leaving is something you're pulling out of your ass because you have no idea how impactful it was to the overall density reduction of Manhattan. But if you were even trying to be honest instead of blindly juelzing you could just look at the numbers and realize it would take over 70% of Manhattan's population fleeing to drop its population density down to the level of San Francisco. Do you think 70% of Manhattan's residents fled?
Even if that much did flee, it's also irrelevant because by time the order went into effect, the damage was already done!

I'll pose the same question to you as I did to tweedle dumb: post the land area and population of the "area" you're trying to state is more densely populated than NYC.

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

This is actually a sound response, except all of the insults make it a less compelling argument. It reads like you’re angry and makes the point seem less poignant. Just make your point and keep it moving.

I don’t care to look into the actual square mileage of all these place because I don’t really care and think this whole argument is irrelevant anyway. I’m just a bystander.

Now you're a psychologist trying to gauge my "anger". Classic.

Of course you "don't care" now that your whole point was proven wrong. Also classic.

 

[Maude]

we need 4 million less people here easily.

You willing to lead by example?

 

[Michael's Black Son]

You willing to lead by example?

I’m more than willing to draw a map to show 4 million broke motherfukkas the exit from this place.

 

[Mowgli]

The true GOAT left coast state/city = AZ/Phoenix

we aint gotta deal with earthquakes, gets hot as fukk but its cool tho

 

[YouMadd?]

Yep I remember a lot of flu and bad respiratory stuff was going around end of summer beginning of Fall last year....

Me and my co-worker were talking about this. There was a nasty bug going on last year that was kicking everybodys ass. I was sick for 2 weeks.

 

[Unknown Poster]

This is all Trump's fault.
He's letting NYC suffer cause they didn't vote for his bytch ass.
He's a sick and demented excuse for a politcian and should be locked up immediately.

 

[YakSpiller]

This is all Trump's fault.
He's letting NYC suffer cause they didn't vote for his bytch ass.
He's a sick and demented excuse for a politcian and should be locked up immediately.

He needs to get his ass kicked and stoned.

 

[UberEatsDriver]

you arent comparing apples to apples thats why

New York City, the city itself, is big as fukk at 300 square miles, where as San Francisco is 46 square miles, so if you compared San Francisco + 250 square miles surrounding it to equal the same size as New York City, it would be more densely populated than New York City

just because New York City has 5 burroughs and no other city in America has that, doesnt mean that mile radius wise, when compared to the size of New York City, are not more populated within that same radius.

if you choose to argue with that fact then go on and enjoy your friday night man nothing left to be said after that


look at it another way, a simpler way because obviously you decided to log in retarded today


take away the city names

the metropolitans

the burroughs

the names of the anything related to either NYC or Bay Area


if you took 300 square miles as a circle and placed it over a map, with no names on it,

and more people lived in that circle in 1 area than the other, would you admit that it is more densely populated ?

So according to this logic it’s unfair to compare NYC to Los Angeles which has much more square miles than NYC?


Square miles are irrelevant. No city has the same square miles. The fact that SF is 46 sq miles tells me that SF is a tiny ass city while NYC is much bigger.


So let me guess you also feel it’s unfair to compare SF to Houston because of sq miles also?

 

[UberEatsDriver]

The two of you are arguing about two different things. You’re “defending” New York and its density, referencing only actual cities (City limits). He already agrees that as a city, New York is the densest. The point that he’s making is that with regard to COVID-19, speaking about the actual city and its city limits is pointless if you are comparing density and how COVID-19 can be transmitted. If you compare the size of New York to the same size of land in the Bay Area, then the Bay Area is more dense.

New York has boroughs, but is all one city. Other American cities tend to have smaller central cities and more suburbs that people still consider the city (metro area) for all intents and purposes.

A better argument for you against him would be pointing out that while the Bay Area is more dense in comparison to New York, New York has a level of hyper density that is not present in other cities. Instead, y’all just keep going back and forth about semantics. If neither of you agree what you’re arguing about, there is no point in continuing to go back and forth.

earlier in this thread I said that density does not play much as a part in this virus as people immediately assumed and I initially brought up SF and LA as “dense” locations.


So I was agreeing with @itsyoung!! at first till he started getting hostile