posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 03:14 PM
I don't see any reason why living at home means living alone - the two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm not saying it's healthy to stay indoors all the time, but there's a huge difference between staying indoors and being a complete loner. I know
old married couples who basically never leave their house, but they have each other for company, and that keeps them sane.
Routine helps also.
The internet, too, provides a medium to talk to people without physically leaving your house.
Try living in solitary confinement with no internet, no music, no people, nothing..that's rough. But in your house? That's hardly as bad as y'all
are making it out to be. As long as you don't live in a crappy little garden apartment below a crappy band's practice room, or a micro-studio next
to a hog fat rendering plant.
Maybe this is the future...
I would gladly have competed if given the chance. As long as they pay for necessities it's a deal.
I'll even trump him and go 3 years without leaving the house. I think I could even do five years...
Can I hang out the windows? What about the roof, is the roof off-limits?
Who's going to sponsor me?
think it's a valid point being made about conditioning people - it's certainly true that the government and their corporate sponsors
would like nothing more than to lord over a race of repugnant, albino mole people who are afraid to leave their homes and forever stuck in an endless
cycle of toil and usery - similar to what we have now really, but with less traffic on the roadways)