No, I said something more like "if you make your preferences so limited that you discount 99.5% of your possibilities, you're going to find yourself with very few options." Which is, more or less, a truism.

Sorry I hurt you.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The more common viewpoint which actually deserves criticism is "I was born here and that makes it the best place so I would never travel or live anywhere else. I prefer exactly one 200 mile radius, forever".

This viewpoint is very common in the "99.5%" of the world I'm "missing out on"

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

? Yes, I suppose that would deserve criticism. There are innumerable common viewpoints about all kinds of things that probably deserve criticism, but I don't think we have the space or time to litigate them all here...again, this is a comment thread responding to the original post...

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have all of the preferences you criticize and that leaves me with... Several options.. that I actually would want to live in. And shockingly , my preferences don't absolutely dictate where I live because I understand nothing is perfect. It's a big country and world. Let people have preferences without being weird about it

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You realize this is a comment thread that is responding to the OP's "starter pack" image, right? The entire premise of the image is: I have extremely bounded preferences, but it's unfair I can't buy a house for 200K based on those preferences.

Did you buy the home you currently own in a location that satisfied these preferences for 200K or less? Or are you just responding to my response and not the image to which I was responding?

I have no problem with people having exceptionally limiting preferences, but it seems silly to then complain about the lack (or cost) of those very limited options.