Job Discussion Forums

[zaneth]

or bike? I really like the city I am living in because I can walk almost everywhere. But can't save any money.

Is it possible anywhere in the TEFLverse to walk to work and save money? Without working on an oil derrick with muslim men? Or is this asking too much?

Have some connections in Taiwan and it was my original destination when I left America (got derailed by marriage in Russia - long story). Less money than Korea but warmer climate and more useful language.

Thinking Taichung. Any thoughts?

BTW: BA, CELTA, 5 years experience. Happy to continue living simply but must get out of debt. Not getting any younger. Early thirties.

[trukesehammer]

Wait a minute. Did you say you wanted to walk to work in Taiwan?


Oh, sorry. Sure, it's possible to walk, bike, bus, or even scoot to work and save money here in Taiwan. If you decide walking is your bag, be sure to do a lot of "route stepping" as we used to say in the military. Otherwise, you're gonna be tripping over cracks, steps, uneven surfaces, scooters, and doggie-doo all the time.

[DirtGuy]

Walking in Taiwan?? Yes, it is certainly possible but what an ordeal!

I am a dedicated "walker" and think nothing of walking two or three miles in any direction just to see where I wind up. Did this in Taipei and nearly broke my ankle on several occasions. Trukesehammer is right about the conditions you will encounter. Walking in Taiwan is probably more of an adventure sport than a practical and cheap way to get around.

Besides, with the MRT in Taipei being so cheap and efficient, why would you not use it? Other cities are going to a bit more problematic.

DirtGuy

[zaneth]

Well, Russia in the winter is no piece of cake either. Not possible to walk in a straight line. Compacted ice gets several feet thick and you have to follow the footsteps of those who've gone before to get over it. Spring? Dog turds and cigarette butts everywhere. Summer? Watch out for unmarked open manhole covers. Fall? When the snow falls on puddles it looks just like wet concrete in lamplight when really it's a bottomless pit.

Metro in Moscow is great. Cheap, efficient. But you can't see where you are going. You just pop out of rabbit holes and you don't get a real sense of the city. It's isolating.

I just find that my mental state is so much better when I can walk. Something about not having to get inside a cramped, shaking metal box with scenery wizzing by. The stresses on the body from buses are quite unnatural I find. Hard on the knees. And I don't think our visual cortex was really designed for that wizzing scenery. Somehow the noise of surrounding traffic when I'm walking isn't as bad as the engine noise of buses (they have some real clunkers in Russia, I tell you).

Somehow life just seems better when I can walk. I think it is something deep in our evolution. And a walkable environment is one of the highest signs of civilization.

Now DRIVING buses, that's a different story.....

[trukesehammer]

[Aristotle]

Walking to work on Taiwan can get you killed.

[Zen-Poet]

Aristotle�s posts never fail to amuse me. They are formulaic in their presentation � first, make a sweeping generalization, second, blame the government for everything from sunspots to hair loss, all the while demonstrating a poor grasp of English grammar. Next, fail to provide any sort of corroborating evidence or statistical fact to validate your claims.

Let�s break down Aristotle�s latest post, shall we?

Sweeping Generalization: �Walking to work on Taiwan can get you killed�
Lay Blame with the Government: �� but our government and police department seem ignorant of them and fail to strictly enforce the law.�
Poor Grammar: �on Taiwan� as opposed to �in Taiwan� and �police department� as opposed to police departments, as I am confident that there is, in fact, more than one police department in all of Taiwan.
Failure to Provide Evidence: While Aristotle has started a new trend by actually posting a source as support for his claim, the source that he has quoted is from an opinion section of the China Post. Nowhere in this article, which Aristotle holds forth as corroborating evidence, are there any facts, merely opinions.

Having had my curiosity piqued, I ran a simple Google search. I typed in �number of traffic deaths in Taiwan in 2003�. I also did the same for Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Here are the results:

Taiwan: 2,718
Canada: 2,778
USA: 44,800
UK: 3,508
Australia: 1,633
New Zealand: 144

So you are no more likely to get killed walking to work in Taiwan than you are in Canada. I don�t know about anyone else but I consider Canada etc. to be �a developed country�. So much for Aristotle�s claims.

Just for fun, I also ran a Google search on the number of people who choked to death on rice each year and wouldn�t you know it, there are at least 10 � 20 fatalities every year. Perhaps Aristotle should post a warning that eating rice can be fatal...

[SanChong]

Ahh, that was perhaps the best response to one of Aristotle's posts that I have seen! I think we should plug all his posts into the formula/analysis you have created.

It's really just sad. None of us would even care about his apparent mental impairment, but his posts may actually affect those who come here with a clean slate looking for a genuine and realistic picture of life in Taiwan. As such, we need to waste our time rebutting his silly posts, when we could be providing real information to people.

Here's a scary thought: Aristotle is actually a teacher!!

[mlomker]

[trukesehammer]

[Zen-Poet]

I was wondering when someone would notice that.

Mlomker, you are correct, as the numbers are a) traffic fatalities and not pedestrian fatalities, b) gross numbers and not per capita numbers and c) not expressed as a percentage.

However, if we really want to split hairs, Aristotle is correct - walking to work in Taiwan can kill you. If there is even one person killed walking to work, then the statement becomes true. That doesn�t, however, make it commonplace. If one is going to make a statement such as Aristotle has made then it must be followed up with �� as it can anywhere else in the world.� But you will never see Aristotle make that kind of a concession to the reality of things.

Oh, I have no doubt that anyone with the time and the inclination could find a single incident to support any of Aristotle�s claims, but a single incident doesn�t a trend make. My issue (and ultimately, my point) is with the danger of making sweeping generalities for the express purpose of misleading people and make no mistake, that�s what Aristotle does.

Its easy to figure out Aristotle�s agenda. He sees himself as a revolutionary who wishes to force a culture that isn�t his own to change to better suit his worldview. Ignoring the unmitigated arrogance of such an action, he has applied a tried and true formula to his agenda. First, tell people what�s wrong. Then make them afraid of it and then tell them who�s to blame for it. In his case, he will try to make foreign teachers afraid of most things Taiwanese by playing on people�s fear of the unknown and then blames the Taiwanese government for it.

To the best of my knowledge, Aristotle is not a Taiwanese citizen. Operating under that assumption, Aristotle seems to have forgotten this and, as such, has further forgotten that he doesn�t get a say in how the Taiwanese choose to govern Taiwan. He, like the rest of us, is a guest here - nothing more. I don�t know about anyone else, but its usually considered rude when a guest takes every available opportunity to criticize one�s host, especially when one does so in a manner designed to mislead, inveigle and obfuscate facts.

Aristotle, if you wish for your agenda to be taken seriously, then present facts and let people examine them and decide for themselves what they will choose to do with those facts. You wish to be the voice of dissent � fine. Bear in mind that people tend to listen to a well thought out, well presented argument as opposed to the ranting of the unwashed, bearded prophet who shouts at passers-by in the town square.

[trukesehammer]

Geez, what a bunch of crybabies.

Not that I'm kissing Aristotle's butt or anything, but did it ever occur to you that he might be yanking everyone's chains on purpose?

In fact, check it out -- it looks like he picked the wrong nickname. Maybe it should have been Socrates

[SanChong]

Zen Poet: Extremely well put. Thank you. It really would be nice if we could move on to the business of having a fun and inforational forum instead of wasting our time on Aristotle.
I wish he was doing this on purpose, that would almost make more sense.... However, he clearly believes in this craziness!

[SanChong]

Double post, sorry!

[SanChong]

Shoot, triple post... apologies again.