Post Reply 198 posts
Politics
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Wed May 22, 2013 2:05 am

    X-Thor wrote:]Well, both cognitive psychology and behavioral economics have established that "visual cues" have a statistically significant and measurable effect on consumers' choices (and this is something exploited by the marketing departments of many companies). So there is a justification for the "soda size" law in NYC. Whether it's appropiate or not (or if it goes against personal freedoms) is another question entirely.


    And what justification would that be? That too many people drink too much soda? That's everyone's choice to make. I hear and see non-stop at metal shows, including the cruises, people drinking ridiculous amounts of alcohol. What if some politician made some law against drinking that much? Everyone here would be outraged. If people want cigarettes, they want cigarettes, and cigarette companies are of course going to try to get them to buy them. Bloomberg's and other politicians' justifications for trying to control what we put in our bodies are always weak and intrusive to say the least.

    Also, I don't think whether or not it's "appropriate" or anti-personal freedom is "another question entirely". It IS the question. We're not having a marketing debate here. Whether the way they display cigarettes gets people to buy them or not has nothing to do with this, because when you speak of "justification", you're speaking in terms of morality, which is exactly what I'm getting at: the morality of it (as well as legitimacy), not the marketing effectiveness.

    I'm just saying, just because someone wants to pass a law that goes against your worldview, it doesn't make him/her psychotic, evil or stupid. This, I think, is a huge problem when discussing politics.


    It certainly doesn't make them the opposite of those things. The way I look at it, if they actually took their oath seriously and had any inkling of not just their role in office but of the effects these kinds of laws have, which have been well studied and published, they probably wouldn't pass them. I mean, why would anyone in their right mind want to go around and tell millions of people they have to stop selling people so much soda, that they have to get rid of all the giant cups they spent a bunch of money producing and change their menus to be in compliance with some new law? You wouldn't like it if your governor limited how much bacon you could buy at the store. Like I said, the soda limit will have absolutely no real positive effect, something anyone with a brain can figure out, yet he passed it. I mean, I just can't imagine some powerful governor sitting in his office with tons of work on his hands, including a state in major financial trouble, and being paid a ridiculous amount of money, and him going, "You know what? People are drinking too much soda. We ought to get some bill passed that would help stop them from doing this." Again though, it's not just the soda ban, but the whole picture. Please look into all of Bloomberg's politics instead of focusing on one little law he's passed. Please look at the big picture; there's clearly a pattern of behavior.

    It's hard to understand that the other side has reasonable arguments behind their positions.
    [/quote]

    Well, "reasonable" is quite subjective in many instances, but I have actually listened to Bloomberg's comments on why he passed the soda law, and they're of course completely inconsistent with the American values of freedom he supposedly supports. I listen to every side of the issue, and not everyone says some bogus, authoritarian nonsense. Sometimes people say something that sounds reasonable on the surface, but are just misguided, such as issues on welfare or unions. I definitely don't use the "extreme" label mentioned before for those people; I can actually see why they might think the way they do, even if they're wrong. This though, with Bloomberg, is not one of the cases, not when you look at his pattern of behavior. This country is moving closer and closer to a police state, and politicians like Bloomberg are responsible for it, and, no, "police state" is not an exaggeration. It literally is moving in that direction.
  • User avatar
    Chris
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 299
    Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:45 am
    Location: Wausau,WI USA

    Re: Politics

    by Chris » Wed May 22, 2013 8:45 am

    I agree that the soda thing is absurd. But it's hardly the only, largest, or most heavily reinforced restriction on a consumable out there. It's one of the more ridiculous for sure. It's hardly a move that should spark rebellion. But considering it's one a part of the large health issues that face this country, and it really does nothing to remove, or probably even hinder the problem..it's an incredibly stupid law. It's absurd that one can't buy a gigantic soda in NYC but you could potentially buy a shake or other beverage with as much or more sugar and tons of fat.
    If the issue were one of advertising poor health choices, why not restrict the advertisements themselves?
  • X-Thor
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2891
    Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:11 am
    Location: Mexico City, Mexico
    Contact:

    Re: Politics

    by X-Thor » Wed May 22, 2013 11:31 am

    Blumpkin wrote:
    X-Thor wrote:Well, both cognitive psychology and behavioral economics have established that "visual cues" have a statistically significant and measurable effect on consumers' choices (and this is something exploited by the marketing departments of many companies). So there is a justification for the "soda size" law in NYC. Whether it's appropiate or not (or if it goes against personal freedoms) is another question entirely.


    And what justification would that be? That too many people drink too much soda? That's everyone's choice to make. I hear and see non-stop at metal shows, including the cruises, people drinking ridiculous amounts of alcohol. What if some politician made some law against drinking that much? Everyone here would be outraged. If people want cigarettes, they want cigarettes, and cigarette companies are of course going to try to get them to buy them. Bloomberg's and other politicians' justifications for trying to control what we put in our bodies are always weak and intrusive to say the least.


    As far as I know, it only restricts the size of the soda container. You can still drink all the soda you want, just not in one gallon bottles. And, well, the justification could be "We want people to drink less soda because of diabetes, but since we can't (and won't) ban soda alltogether, we'll try economic incentives and psychological nudges to do so". Again, whether that is something the State should do (you, as a Libertarian, of course would say it shouldn't. Other persons, in other places in the political ideology spectrum would say otherwise.

    Blumpkin wrote:Also, I don't think whether or not it's "appropriate" or anti-personal freedom is "another question entirely". It IS the question. We're not having a marketing debate here. Whether the way they display cigarettes gets people to buy them or not has nothing to do with this, because when you speak of "justification", you're speaking in terms of morality, which is exactly what I'm getting at: the morality of it (as well as legitimacy), not the marketing effectiveness.


    As you can see, we weren't talking about whether the State should or shouldn't do something...

    Blumpkin wrote:Why not? He passed a law that has absolutely NO indication that it would work or result in what he's looking for. Furthermore, it causes all the businesses to have to change their practices, even hurting their profits. So in other words, there's no good that could come of it and he knew that from the beginning.


    But rather about whether there was an "indication that it would work" or if there was "good that could come of it".

    Again, and please let's not turn this into an argument between deafs (this makes sense in Spanish, hopefully it will make sense in English :oops: ): we are not talking about the role of the State and we won't talk about it because I have no real interest in engaging in a political theory discussion (had WAY too many of those when I was in school). I'm just saying there IS a rationale behind the idea of the law that Bloomberg attempted to pass. And from a certain set of political beliefs, it makes sense and it's justified. So you can't just say:

    Blumpkin wrote: there's no good that could come of it and he knew that from the beginning.


    Though you could say that the State has no role doing so. But I seriously don't want to go there.


    Blumpkin wrote:
    X-Thor wrote:I'm just saying, just because someone wants to pass a law that goes against your worldview, it doesn't make him/her psychotic, evil or stupid. This, I think, is a huge problem when discussing politics.


    It certainly doesn't make them the opposite of those things. The way I look at it, if they actually took their oath seriously and had any inkling of not just their role in office but of the effects these kinds of laws have, which have been well studied and published, they probably wouldn't pass them. I mean, why would anyone in their right mind want to go around and tell millions of people they have to stop selling people so much soda, that they have to get rid of all the giant cups they spent a bunch of money producing and change their menus to be in compliance with some new law? You wouldn't like it if your governor limited how much bacon you could buy at the store. Like I said, the soda limit will have absolutely no real positive effect, something anyone with a brain can figure out, yet he passed it. I mean, I just can't imagine some powerful governor sitting in his office with tons of work on his hands, including a state in major financial trouble, and being paid a ridiculous amount of money, and him going, "You know what? People are drinking too much soda. We ought to get some bill passed that would help stop them from doing this." Again though, it's not just the soda ban, but the whole picture. Please look into all of Bloomberg's politics instead of focusing on one little law he's passed. Please look at the big picture; there's clearly a pattern of behavior.


    OK, hold on.

    It certainly doesn't make them the opposite of those things.

    Who said it did? I'm just saying it's not "stupid". Not-stupid doesn't mean "genius" and we both know it.

    if they actually took their oath seriously and had any inkling of not just their role in office but of the effects these kinds of laws have, which have been well studied and published, they probably wouldn't pass them.


    Like I said, the soda limit will have absolutely no real positive effect, something anyone with a brain can figure out, yet he passed it.


    As you probably know, "published results" in social science rarely are as clear-cut as in the natural science (Duverger's Law comes to mind, but that's about the ONLY thing we have that can resemble a "scientifical law"). Now, as I've told you many times, there are also studies and scientific papers that prove visual cues have a strong, statistically significant effect on individuals. By the way, the same thing cannot be said about the "axioms of rationality" that support most of micro and microeconomic theory. That's why Tversky and Kahneman won a Nobel prize in economics for their studies on behavioral economics. That's also why many orthodox economists hate behavioral economics. Now, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but, objectively, you can't seriously claim that only one side has "well studied and published" results. And you certainly can't say "anyone with a brain" would know which side is right.

    "You know what? People are drinking too much soda. We ought to get some bill passed that would help stop them from doing this."


    Well, it could be argued that soda consumption is strongly linked to obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, which exert a negative impact on the state's finances (because there are at least some people who get health care from the government). (Also, LET'S PLEASE NOT TALK ABOUT HEALTH CARE. THIS IS GETTING ANNOYING AS IT IS). Again, not saying that's something the government should or shouldn't do, but there clearly is a rationale behind it. Also, I don't know how it is in NYC, but in México there is strong popular and media support for government actions to reduce obesity.

    I just can't imagine some powerful governor


  • He's a mayor, not a governor. Still, your point is the same. Just pointing it out. :P

    Also, look at this, we're arguing about politics like reasonable adults with no name calling and no resort to absurd argumentative phallacies. This is very very rare. I'm almost enjoying it!


    Blumpkin wrote:
    X-Thor wrote:It's hard to understand that the other side has reasonable arguments behind their positions.


    Well, "reasonable" is quite subjective in many instances, but I have actually listened to Bloomberg's comments on why he passed the soda law, and they're of course completely inconsistent with the American values of freedom he supposedly supports. I listen to every side of the issue, and not everyone says some bogus, authoritarian nonsense. Sometimes people say something that sounds reasonable on the surface, but are just misguided, such as issues on welfare or unions. I definitely don't use the "extreme" label mentioned before for those people; I can actually see why they might think the way they do, even if they're wrong. This though, with Bloomberg, is not one of the cases, not when you look at his pattern of behavior. This country is moving closer and closer to a police state, and politicians like Bloomberg are responsible for it, and, no, "police state" is not an exaggeration. It literally is moving in that direction.


    Like I said, you are a Libertarian and I can see what makes you think, believe and feel that way. However, please just aknowledge that just because someone doesn't value what you understand as freedom as much as you do, doesn't make that someone a "radical", a "psychopath", a "moron" or "anti-American".

    I'd also like to point out that you seem to defend your arguments from the assumption that you are absolutely correct in your ideological position (at least so far, but I may be wrong). Most people tend to do so, regardless of their ideology (though I should say that in my experience [so this is anecdotical evidence at best and in no way means I'm saying that's the way it is], the proportion of people willing to admit their argument might be wrong is higher among "liberals" than "libertarians" and higher in "libertarians" than in "conservatives"). In my opinion, this is what makes "arguing" about politics as futile and useless as doing it about religion or sports.
    70K 2013 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2120)
    70K 2014 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2565)

    In perpetual post-cruise depression/pre-cruise anxiety.

    Doing my best to be there for 2015.
    --
    Wishlist: Blind Guardian and Saurom. Will probably like 90%+ of the bands onbroad anyway.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Wed May 22, 2013 12:06 pm

    Chris wrote:I agree that the soda thing is absurd. But it's hardly the only, largest, or most heavily reinforced restriction on a consumable out there. It's one of the more ridiculous for sure. It's hardly a move that should spark rebellion. But considering it's one a part of the large health issues that face this country, and it really does nothing to remove, or probably even hinder the problem..it's an incredibly stupid law. It's absurd that one can't buy a gigantic soda in NYC but you could potentially buy a shake or other beverage with as much or more sugar and tons of fat.
    If the issue were one of advertising poor health choices, why not restrict the advertisements themselves?


    Well, I don't know how much it's enforced, but, yes, absurd and ineffective to say the least. I think the worst laws on consumables though are the drug laws. Prohibition has never worked at any time in any civilization, and is responsible for so much crime and wasted resources.

    Good point on the shake thing though. Also, some of those smoothies they sell in those big chains like Jamba Juice have quite a lot of sugar in them. So, yes, it's a ridiculous principle because once you start with sodas, you have to do the same for all sugary drinks, and what a worse mess that would be.

    As for the advertising part, I'm guessing he can't do that because it would be a restriction on free speech. Then again, they have made cigarette ads on TV illegal, so who knows? Big brother government will probably eventually find a way to do what it wants with that.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Wed May 22, 2013 12:52 pm

    As far as I know, it only restricts the size of the soda container. You can still drink all the soda you want, just not in one gallon bottles. And, well, the justification could be "We want people to drink less soda because of diabetes, but since we can't (and won't) ban soda alltogether, we'll try economic incentives and psychological nudges to do so". Again, whether that is something the State should do (you, as a Libertarian, of course would say it shouldn't. Other persons, in other places in the political ideology spectrum would say otherwise.


    Yes, that was one of the justifications Bloomberg gave: "It doesn't stop people from drinking how much soda they want." Well, if the point was to reduce people's soda intake, then you've just admitted it's not at all effective. What it does do is force businesses to throw away money they've invested in these big cups, and rewrite their menus and such. So since it still doesn't solve the problem, what was the point? You know, if your whole thing is "economic incentives", then you should stop the government from subsidizing corn, as that's one of the big reasons why corn syrup is used so much, and as for "psychological nudges", first it's sodas, next it's fatty foods, then it's onto exercising, etc. There's no stop to it, but more importantly, there's no reason for it. What drinks I drink and foods I eat is not any politician's business.

    As you can see, we weren't talking about whether the State should or shouldn't do something...

    ...

    ...we are not talking about the role of the State...


    Yeah, we kinda were, because that was the whole point.... I wouldn't have a problem if a business decided on its own to stop selling those big soda cups for the same reasons as Bloomberg made that stupid law.

    ...and we won't talk about it because I have no real interest in engaging in a political theory discussion...


    Then why are you on a politics thread when you have no interest in discussing politics?

    I'm just saying there IS a rationale behind the idea of the law that Bloomberg attempted to pass.


    So? There's ALWAYS a rationale behind ANY law. There was a rationale behind the Jim Crow laws too. Doesn't mean they are at all justifiable, logical or moral. Some rationales are worse than others, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't change the facts.

    And from a certain set of political beliefs, it makes sense and it's justified.

    So why did he justify its legality by saying it doesn't actually impose on people's freedom to drink however much soda they want? You admitted that, but then you say there was some sensible rationale behind it. So if the whole point was to get people to stop drinking so much soda, but all it did was make it slightly more inconvenient to drink as much as they are currently drinking, and it imposed on businesses, how did it "make sense" and is "justified"?

    Though you could say that the State has no role doing so. But I seriously don't want to go there.

    That was kinda the whole point. I don't know why you want to avoid the most important aspect of this whole thing. Even if the soda law DID curtail people's soda intake, it's still immoral for the simple fact that the state has no business in people's diets. The ineffectiveness part only makes it even more insane.

    Now, as I've told you many times, there are also studies and scientific papers that prove visual cues have a strong, statistically significant effect on individuals.

    Moot point. You are trying to discuss/debate things which I have no interest in. We know the effectiveness of ads. So what??? It doesn't matter. What matters is Bloomberg and other busy body politicians trying to control people's lives through legislation.

    Now, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but, objectively, you can't seriously claim that only one side has "well studied and published" results. And you certainly can't say "anyone with a brain" would know which side is right.

    I didn't say the first part, and as for the second part, I only applied that statement to the soda law, not things in general (even if I do feel that way on a variety of topics).

    Well, it could be argued that soda consumption is strongly linked to obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, which exert a negative impact on the state's finances (because there are at least some people who get health care from the government). (Also, LET'S PLEASE NOT TALK ABOUT HEALTH CARE. THIS IS GETTING ANNOYING AS IT IS). Again, not saying that's something the government should or shouldn't do, but there clearly is a rationale behind it.

    See my previous comment about "rationale".

    Yes, that too was one of Bloomberg's justifications: "Obesity and obesity-related conditions are a drain on the state finances." If that's the case, then cut off some of the medical welfare they receive. I don't mean to get into the health care debate, but you brought it up. This justification only further demonstrates why government health care doesn't work, because now people who take care of themselves are forced to pay for people who don't. If you allow the government to control your medical care, then you allow it to control your diet and lifestyle. Let's force obese people to exercise since being fat is a drain on the health care system. Same rationale, so it must make sense.

    Either way though, health care debate aside, all of it is just another sign of the increasing nanny state, so that's what I'm concerned with. I don't give a damn if 90% of New Yorkers are disgustingly obese. I can't control those people's lives, but the government shouldn't try to either.

    Also, I don't know how it is in NYC, but in México there is strong popular and media support for government actions to reduce obesity.

    Yes, here too in the U.S. Michelle Obama (the First Lady in case you don't know) got Congress to give her a ridiculous sum of money -- something like $5 billion I THINK (saw the figure on the news, but forgot it and couldn't find it on the web) -- to go on some campaign to teach little kids about eating healthy and exercising. Absurd. The government has already spent even more doing this, especially in public schools, and now it has to spend even more. This is just another sign of how government grows. People want it to "fix" something it can't fix, and when that doesn't work, the answer isn't that the government just isn't capable of fixing it; they just need more money! So they spend more money, and then that doesn't work, so more money is required. It's a very simple, glaring pattern in pretty much everything it does. People ask the government to do something because it's an authority figure, but what they don't realize is all the economics that go behind it make it very incapable of being the solution, and worse so, the force the government has can backfire and negatively affect people's lives. It's a lose-lose really. The U.S. government has been trying to fix the "obesity epidemic" for god knows how long now -- since the early 00's I think -- and not only has it done nothing, it's now saying it needs more money.

    The really ironic part about the whole obesity thing though, is the government subsidizes a bunch of foods that are used in junk food, and even junk food itself, or at least foods that aren't that healthy. So in that sense, it's just as much a culprit as a supposed solution. Check out this article below:

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... o-eat.aspx

    Additionally, if you go into public schools, they serve pre-made, pre-packaged foods low in nutritional value instead of fresh stuff made in house (which would make them healthier), and a lot of them aren't even good for you to begin with. I remember in school they used to serve hot dogs and pizza for Christ sake. Oh, and let's not forget the ever-present chocolate milk you could drink with all that nutritious food!

    He's a mayor, not a governor. Still, your point is the same. Just pointing it out.

    Yeah, I realize I said that a few times. (giant facepalm)

    However, please just aknowledge that just because someone doesn't value what you understand as freedom as much as you do, doesn't make that someone a "radical", a "psychopath", a "moron" or "anti-American".

    Please too look at my previous comment where I mentioned I don't apply this to everyone, that I acknowledge when someone says something that at least could be interpreted as reasonable, AND that I said it's not JUST this one or few things Bloomberg has done since he's been office, but all the things collectively; I'm basing my "adjectives" of him based on what he's done as a whole. I didn't call Bush a warmonger just over the Iraq War, but all the foreign military operations he supported, either.

    I'd also like to point out that you seem to defend your arguments from the assumption that you are absolutely correct in your ideological position (at least so far, but I may be wrong). Most people tend to do so, regardless of their ideology (though I should say that in my experience [so this is anecdotical evidence at best and in no way means I'm saying that's the way it is], the proportion of people willing to admit their argument might be wrong is higher among "liberals" than "libertarians" and higher in "libertarians" than in "conservatives"). In my opinion, this is what makes "arguing" about politics as futile and useless as doing it about religion or sports.

    Well, I think that's a moot point since everyone who argues anything MOST of the time argues argues from the position that they're right -- like 99 out of 100 times, so that really goes without saying. However, I like to think a lot of my positions are better overall because they don't impose on anyone. Usually when people argue against me, it's to pass some law to stop people from doing or force people to do something. Bloomberg FORCES restaurants to stop selling soda in a container over a certain size. My argument is to allow people the freedom to make their own choices. Since when has choice become such an evil thing? I make mine, and you make yours, and everybody wins. I'm also basing a lot of my arguments on history, which most people unfortunately don't do. They say history repeats itself, and when arguing politics, it's very easy for me to see why. Either way though, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, and I have. I used to think the War on Drugs might be a good thing. Now, I realize I was wrong to even believe "might". I used to be strongly for capital punishment. Now, I'm very much hesitant about it. Those are just a couple examples. Who knows what I'll think a few more years down the road? :P
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Wed May 22, 2013 1:27 pm

    Jesus! What's been happening while I was offline? It'll take the rest of my free time to catch up on this discussion.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Wed May 22, 2013 1:36 pm

    [quote="Blumpkin"]

    Please too look at my previous comment where I mentioned I don't apply this to everyone, that I acknowledge when someone says something that at least could be interpreted as reasonable, AND that I said it's not JUST this one or few things Bloomberg has done since he's been office, but all the things collectively; I'm basing my "adjectives" of him based on what he's done as a whole. I didn't call Bush a warmonger just over the Iraq War, but all the foreign military operations he supported, either.

    [quote]

    You've got a good point there. Obviously, you know him much better than I do, considering I started learning about him two days ago, and it would be silly to expect you to be able to instantly remember everything he did that made him come across as such a monster. I guess I'll put my opinion of him on hold for now.
  • X-Thor
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2891
    Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:11 am
    Location: Mexico City, Mexico
    Contact:

    Re: Politics

    by X-Thor » Wed May 22, 2013 4:11 pm

    Blumpkin:

    I am not going to quote you because it's too time consuming and yawn. This will be the final things I will say because, clearly, I am failing at getting my point across. These are my responses:

    1) Nobody is talking about advertising. Visual cues are NOT the same as advertising. I will not explain the difference since I am not a psychologist or a behavioral economist and I don't wish to confuse you with my amateur understanding of those subjects. You can Google (or better yet, Google Scholar) it yourself or at least check out this scientific article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.12/full I'm sure you'll at least understand why the soda size ban makes sense, even if you still dissagree with it for ideological reasons (which is still a respectable thing to do). Or we can wait a few years and see if the average soda intake has dimminished in NYC and if we can attribute that to the soda size ban. Otherwise, yawn.

    2) I am a political scientist. I am interested (in both a theoretical and a practical level) in policy, politics (as in political economy, congressional studies, comparative politics and such) and research methodology. I have no real interest in discussing political theory. Yes, I quoted Rawls back in the first page of the thread, but that doesn't mean I want to engage in a political theory discussion. I don't want to talk about the role of the state because your arguments are typically Libertarian, so I'm pretty sure I already know what you'll say. Hence, I have ZERO desire of engaging in what will ammount to a dialogue between deaf persons: I know what you'll say, I'm positive you won't stop thinking it's wrong to do it and I know I won't change my mind. So what's the point?

    3) You can't say there is no reason to think a law will have the effects it's supposed to have, just because you dissagree with them. If you don't agree with the reasons for the law, that's fine and it's your opinion. But please understand there is a conceptual difference between an immoral law and an ineffective law. For a law to be ineffective it has to fail to have the effect that it's supposed to have. For a law to be immoral, it has to go against a certain ser of beliefs and values (morals). Do you have comparative evidence of its ineffectiveness? Show it (here's some: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/11/science/la-sci-small-sodas-20130411). Strong theorietical reasons to believe it won't work? Explain them. Otherwise, argue all you want about the morality of a law... With someone else.

    4) My whole point in this discussion is that you can't call someone a "psychopath" or psychotic just because they support something you don't. I've explained over and over that there are reasons (based on empirical and experimental evidence) to think that the soda ban will have an effect on soda intake, yet you keep saying it won't have any effect at all, but fail to provide evidence to support your point and keep arguing that the law is wrong. It may be. I don't care (seriously) and I will not argue about that.

    5) I'm not saying the soda size ban will work (I even presented an article reporting a paper that strongly implies it won't!). I just want you to understand that there is a difference between the effect of a law or a policy and its morality.
    70K 2013 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2120)
    70K 2014 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2565)

    In perpetual post-cruise depression/pre-cruise anxiety.

    Doing my best to be there for 2015.
    --
    Wishlist: Blind Guardian and Saurom. Will probably like 90%+ of the bands onbroad anyway.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Wed May 22, 2013 5:52 pm

    X-Thor wrote:Blumpkin:

    I am not going to quote you because it's too time consuming and yawn. This will be the final things I will say because, clearly, I am failing at getting my point across. These are my responses:

    1) Nobody is talking about advertising. Visual cues are NOT the same as advertising. I will not explain the difference since I am not a psychologist or a behavioral economist and I don't wish to confuse you with my amateur understanding of those subjects. You can Google (or better yet, Google Scholar) it yourself or at least check out this scientific article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.12/full I'm sure you'll at least understand why the soda size ban makes sense, even if you still dissagree with it for ideological reasons (which is still a respectable thing to do). Or we can wait a few years and see if the average soda intake has dimminished in NYC and if we can attribute that to the soda size ban. Otherwise, yawn.

    2) I am a political scientist. I am interested (in both a theoretical and a practical level) in policy, politics (as in political economy, congressional studies, comparative politics and such) and research methodology. I have no real interest in discussing political theory. Yes, I quoted Rawls back in the first page of the thread, but that doesn't mean I want to engage in a political theory discussion. I don't want to talk about the role of the state because your arguments are typically Libertarian, so I'm pretty sure I already know what you'll say. Hence, I have ZERO desire of engaging in what will ammount to a dialogue between deaf persons: I know what you'll say, I'm positive you won't stop thinking it's wrong to do it and I know I won't change my mind. So what's the point?

    3) You can't say there is no reason to think a law will have the effects it's supposed to have, just because you dissagree with them. If you don't agree with the reasons for the law, that's fine and it's your opinion. But please understand there is a conceptual difference between an immoral law and an ineffective law. For a law to be ineffective it has to fail to have the effect that it's supposed to have. For a law to be immoral, it has to go against a certain ser of beliefs and values (morals). Do you have comparative evidence of its ineffectiveness? Show it (here's some: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/11/science/la-sci-small-sodas-20130411). Strong theorietical reasons to believe it won't work? Explain them. Otherwise, argue all you want about the morality of a law... With someone else.

    4) My whole point in this discussion is that you can't call someone a "psychopath" or psychotic just because they support something you don't. I've explained over and over that there are reasons (based on empirical and experimental evidence) to think that the soda ban will have an effect on soda intake, yet you keep saying it won't have any effect at all, but fail to provide evidence to support your point and keep arguing that the law is wrong. It may be. I don't care (seriously) and I will not argue about that.

    5) I'm not saying the soda size ban will work (I even presented an article reporting a paper that strongly implies it won't!). I just want you to understand that there is a difference between the effect of a law or a policy and its morality.


    1. Again, irrelevant. Like I said, even the effectiveness of the law is irrelevant here; whether it reduces New Yorkers' soda intake or not is not the point (despite the fact that you admitted it wouldn't do anything to such an effect). The point is it's intrusive on one's personal freedom to decide what they eat and drink, and if that's something someone agrees with, come the next cruise they should have no problem with a government official trying to regulate how much alcohol they consume.

    2. So, again, why are you here?

    3. Sigh, why am I repeating myself? See point one.

    By the way, I never said it won't have the desired affect just because I disagreed with the law on moral grounds. I never even implied this. Moot point.

    4. Wow. SEE MY PREVIOUS POSTS WHERE I WENT OVER THIS POINT AD NAUSEUM. I CAN'T SEE HOW I CAN BE *ANY* CLEARER OR MORE DETAILED ON THIS. At this point you are just repeating yourself. You missed something I said and are continuing to say the same thing. I don't know if it's a language barrier, but I have more than explained myself on this point, so you need to re-read what I've written prior and take in the comments of mine you are so clearly missing.

    5. You're repeating an earlier point you made in your post, a point which I have responded to in previous posts which YOU also repeated in previous posts. Redundant. Re-read my prior posts (assuming your English is not lacking, which it appears to not be) and say something different so the discussion can move forward. Really, if you look at your last post and compare it to this one, minus a few points which you've omitted here, they are basically the exact same.
  • X-Thor
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2891
    Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:11 am
    Location: Mexico City, Mexico
    Contact:

    Re: Politics

    by X-Thor » Wed May 22, 2013 6:49 pm

    Ok, reaally quick.

    Blumpkin wrote:1. Again, irrelevant. Like I said, even the effectiveness of the law is irrelevant here; whether it reduces New Yorkers' soda intake or not is not the point (despite the fact that you admitted it wouldn't do anything to such an effect). The point is it's intrusive on one's personal freedom to decide what they eat and drink, and if that's something someone agrees with, come the next cruise they should have no problem with a government official trying to regulate how much alcohol they consume.


    Irrelevant for you, not for me.

    By the way, this:
    X-Thor wrote:5) I'm not saying the soda size ban will work (I even presented an article reporting a paper that strongly implies it won't!). I just want you to understand that there is a difference between the effect of a law or a policy and its morality.


    Does not mean I'm saying it won't work. Just that evidence supports either hypothesis.

    Blumpkin wrote:2. So, again, why are you here?


    You do realize that public policy, comparative politics, political methodology, congressional studies, political economy, etc. are part of "politics", right? The thread is not just about political theory.


    Blumpkin wrote:By the way, I never said it won't have the desired affect just because I disagreed with the law on moral grounds. I never even implied this. Moot point.


    And yet...

    Blumpkin wrote:Like I said, the soda limit will have absolutely no real positive effect, something anyone with a brain can figure out, yet he passed it.


    Yet you failed to provide evidence to support your claim.

    That is all. I will not engage in further discussion with you since we want to talk about different things.
    70K 2013 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2120)
    70K 2014 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2565)

    In perpetual post-cruise depression/pre-cruise anxiety.

    Doing my best to be there for 2015.
    --
    Wishlist: Blind Guardian and Saurom. Will probably like 90%+ of the bands onbroad anyway.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Wed May 22, 2013 6:59 pm

    Blumpkin wrote:
    X-Thor wrote:Blumpkin:

    I am not going to quote you because it's too time consuming and yawn. This will be the final things I will say because, clearly, I am failing at getting my point across. These are my responses:

    1) Nobody is talking about advertising. Visual cues are NOT the same as advertising. I will not explain the difference since I am not a psychologist or a behavioral economist and I don't wish to confuse you with my amateur understanding of those subjects. You can Google (or better yet, Google Scholar) it yourself or at least check out this scientific article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.12/full I'm sure you'll at least understand why the soda size ban makes sense, even if you still dissagree with it for ideological reasons (which is still a respectable thing to do). Or we can wait a few years and see if the average soda intake has dimminished in NYC and if we can attribute that to the soda size ban. Otherwise, yawn.

    2) I am a political scientist. I am interested (in both a theoretical and a practical level) in policy, politics (as in political economy, congressional studies, comparative politics and such) and research methodology. I have no real interest in discussing political theory. Yes, I quoted Rawls back in the first page of the thread, but that doesn't mean I want to engage in a political theory discussion. I don't want to talk about the role of the state because your arguments are typically Libertarian, so I'm pretty sure I already know what you'll say. Hence, I have ZERO desire of engaging in what will ammount to a dialogue between deaf persons: I know what you'll say, I'm positive you won't stop thinking it's wrong to do it and I know I won't change my mind. So what's the point?

    3) You can't say there is no reason to think a law will have the effects it's supposed to have, just because you dissagree with them. If you don't agree with the reasons for the law, that's fine and it's your opinion. But please understand there is a conceptual difference between an immoral law and an ineffective law. For a law to be ineffective it has to fail to have the effect that it's supposed to have. For a law to be immoral, it has to go against a certain ser of beliefs and values (morals). Do you have comparative evidence of its ineffectiveness? Show it (here's some: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/11/science/la-sci-small-sodas-20130411). Strong theorietical reasons to believe it won't work? Explain them. Otherwise, argue all you want about the morality of a law... With someone else.

    4) My whole point in this discussion is that you can't call someone a "psychopath" or psychotic just because they support something you don't. I've explained over and over that there are reasons (based on empirical and experimental evidence) to think that the soda ban will have an effect on soda intake, yet you keep saying it won't have any effect at all, but fail to provide evidence to support your point and keep arguing that the law is wrong. It may be. I don't care (seriously) and I will not argue about that.

    5) I'm not saying the soda size ban will work (I even presented an article reporting a paper that strongly implies it won't!). I just want you to understand that there is a difference between the effect of a law or a policy and its morality.


    1. Again, irrelevant. Like I said, even the effectiveness of the law is irrelevant here; whether it reduces New Yorkers' soda intake or not is not the point (despite the fact that you admitted it wouldn't do anything to such an effect). The point is it's intrusive on one's personal freedom to decide what they eat and drink, and if that's something someone agrees with, come the next cruise they should have no problem with a government official trying to regulate how much alcohol they consume.

    2. So, again, why are you here?

    3. Sigh, why am I repeating myself? See point one.

    By the way, I never said it won't have the desired affect just because I disagreed with the law on moral grounds. I never even implied this. Moot point.

    4. Wow. SEE MY PREVIOUS POSTS WHERE I WENT OVER THIS POINT AD NAUSEUM. I CAN'T SEE HOW I CAN BE *ANY* CLEARER OR MORE DETAILED ON THIS. At this point you are just repeating yourself. You missed something I said and are continuing to say the same thing. I don't know if it's a language barrier, but I have more than explained myself on this point, so you need to re-read what I've written prior and take in the comments of mine you are so clearly missing.

    5. You're repeating an earlier point you made in your post, a point which I have responded to in previous posts which YOU also repeated in previous posts. Redundant. Re-read my prior posts (assuming your English is not lacking, which it appears to not be) and say something different so the discussion can move forward. Really, if you look at your last post and compare it to this one, minus a few points which you've omitted here, they are basically the exact same.


    Hey, Blumpkin. I think you are misunderstanding X-Thor a bit. I got that impression when you stated that the effectiveness of the law was irrelevant. What we need to remember here is that this argument was not about the rightness or wrongness of the law, it was about whether or not we could decide beyond reasonable doubt that Bloomberg was the devil incarnate, figuratively speaking. One piece of course was deciding that the law was unethical. The other was deciding that he had no reason to pass the law except for the enjoyment of controlling people's lives. The first part was up for debate, but X-Thor did explain that there are psychological studies suggesting that it could make a change for the better. If Bloomberg believes that, then he has a reason to pass the law, making him possibly just a deluded knight templar rather than someone with wicked intent.

    On the other hand, I do agree that it was a strange law to pass considering all the other problems on the table. Also, X-Thor, I think Blumkin saved his argument sort of by mentioning how this law was only one of many lines that Bloomberg crossed. It wasn't a detailed answer, but as I posted earlier, it's hard to recall everything that led up to how you feel about someone. Besides, we all seem too tired/lazy to sit down and hear all of it. In the end, I think we just don't have enough information to get at whether or not Blumkin's accusation about Bloomberg's inner-nature is well-founded.

    Somehow I'm worried that I said something foolish or redundant here, but I'm hoping this managed to give the discussion some closure.
  • X-Thor
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2891
    Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:11 am
    Location: Mexico City, Mexico
    Contact:

    Re: Politics

    by X-Thor » Wed May 22, 2013 8:11 pm

    sageoftruth wrote:
    Blumpkin wrote:
    X-Thor wrote:Blumpkin:

    I am not going to quote you because it's too time consuming and yawn. This will be the final things I will say because, clearly, I am failing at getting my point across. These are my responses:

    1) Nobody is talking about advertising. Visual cues are NOT the same as advertising. I will not explain the difference since I am not a psychologist or a behavioral economist and I don't wish to confuse you with my amateur understanding of those subjects. You can Google (or better yet, Google Scholar) it yourself or at least check out this scientific article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.12/full I'm sure you'll at least understand why the soda size ban makes sense, even if you still dissagree with it for ideological reasons (which is still a respectable thing to do). Or we can wait a few years and see if the average soda intake has dimminished in NYC and if we can attribute that to the soda size ban. Otherwise, yawn.

    2) I am a political scientist. I am interested (in both a theoretical and a practical level) in policy, politics (as in political economy, congressional studies, comparative politics and such) and research methodology. I have no real interest in discussing political theory. Yes, I quoted Rawls back in the first page of the thread, but that doesn't mean I want to engage in a political theory discussion. I don't want to talk about the role of the state because your arguments are typically Libertarian, so I'm pretty sure I already know what you'll say. Hence, I have ZERO desire of engaging in what will ammount to a dialogue between deaf persons: I know what you'll say, I'm positive you won't stop thinking it's wrong to do it and I know I won't change my mind. So what's the point?

    3) You can't say there is no reason to think a law will have the effects it's supposed to have, just because you dissagree with them. If you don't agree with the reasons for the law, that's fine and it's your opinion. But please understand there is a conceptual difference between an immoral law and an ineffective law. For a law to be ineffective it has to fail to have the effect that it's supposed to have. For a law to be immoral, it has to go against a certain ser of beliefs and values (morals). Do you have comparative evidence of its ineffectiveness? Show it (here's some: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/11/science/la-sci-small-sodas-20130411). Strong theorietical reasons to believe it won't work? Explain them. Otherwise, argue all you want about the morality of a law... With someone else.

    4) My whole point in this discussion is that you can't call someone a "psychopath" or psychotic just because they support something you don't. I've explained over and over that there are reasons (based on empirical and experimental evidence) to think that the soda ban will have an effect on soda intake, yet you keep saying it won't have any effect at all, but fail to provide evidence to support your point and keep arguing that the law is wrong. It may be. I don't care (seriously) and I will not argue about that.

    5) I'm not saying the soda size ban will work (I even presented an article reporting a paper that strongly implies it won't!). I just want you to understand that there is a difference between the effect of a law or a policy and its morality.


    1. Again, irrelevant. Like I said, even the effectiveness of the law is irrelevant here; whether it reduces New Yorkers' soda intake or not is not the point (despite the fact that you admitted it wouldn't do anything to such an effect). The point is it's intrusive on one's personal freedom to decide what they eat and drink, and if that's something someone agrees with, come the next cruise they should have no problem with a government official trying to regulate how much alcohol they consume.

    2. So, again, why are you here?

    3. Sigh, why am I repeating myself? See point one.

    By the way, I never said it won't have the desired affect just because I disagreed with the law on moral grounds. I never even implied this. Moot point.

    4. Wow. SEE MY PREVIOUS POSTS WHERE I WENT OVER THIS POINT AD NAUSEUM. I CAN'T SEE HOW I CAN BE *ANY* CLEARER OR MORE DETAILED ON THIS. At this point you are just repeating yourself. You missed something I said and are continuing to say the same thing. I don't know if it's a language barrier, but I have more than explained myself on this point, so you need to re-read what I've written prior and take in the comments of mine you are so clearly missing.

    5. You're repeating an earlier point you made in your post, a point which I have responded to in previous posts which YOU also repeated in previous posts. Redundant. Re-read my prior posts (assuming your English is not lacking, which it appears to not be) and say something different so the discussion can move forward. Really, if you look at your last post and compare it to this one, minus a few points which you've omitted here, they are basically the exact same.


    Hey, Blumpkin. I think you are misunderstanding X-Thor a bit. I got that impression when you stated that the effectiveness of the law was irrelevant. What we need to remember here is that this argument was not about the rightness or wrongness of the law, it was about whether or not we could decide beyond reasonable doubt that Bloomberg was the devil incarnate, figuratively speaking. One piece of course was deciding that the law was unethical. The other was deciding that he had no reason to pass the law except for the enjoyment of controlling people's lives. The first part was up for debate, but X-Thor did explain that there are psychological studies suggesting that it could make a change for the better. If Bloomberg believes that, then he has a reason to pass the law, making him possibly just a deluded knight templar rather than someone with wicked intent.

    On the other hand, I do agree that it was a strange law to pass considering all the other problems on the table. Also, X-Thor, I think Blumkin saved his argument sort of by mentioning how this law was only one of many lines that Bloomberg crossed. It wasn't a detailed answer, but as I posted earlier, it's hard to recall everything that led up to how you feel about someone. Besides, we all seem too tired/lazy to sit down and hear all of it. In the end, I think we just don't have enough information to get at whether or not Blumkin's accusation about Bloomberg's inner-nature is well-founded.

    Somehow I'm worried that I said something foolish or redundant here, but I'm hoping this managed to give the discussion some closure.


    You are right. He did say that. My bad. Sorry, Blumpkin... :oops:

    Closure achieved, I think. Now it's time for...

    Image
    70K 2013 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2120)
    70K 2014 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2565)

    In perpetual post-cruise depression/pre-cruise anxiety.

    Doing my best to be there for 2015.
    --
    Wishlist: Blind Guardian and Saurom. Will probably like 90%+ of the bands onbroad anyway.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Wed May 22, 2013 8:21 pm

    YAAAAAAY!
  • KDibildeaux
    Captain
    Posts: 13904
    Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:07 pm
    Location: Tucson, AZ

    Re: Politics

    by KDibildeaux » Wed May 22, 2013 9:09 pm

    X-Thor wrote:Blumpkin:

    I am not going to quote you because it's too time consuming and yawn. This will be the final things I will say because, clearly, I am failing at getting my point across. These are my responses:

    1) Nobody is talking about advertising. Visual cues are NOT the same as advertising. I will not explain the difference since I am not a psychologist or a behavioral economist and I don't wish to confuse you with my amateur understanding of those subjects. You can Google (or better yet, Google Scholar) it yourself or at least check out this scientific article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.12/full I'm sure you'll at least understand why the soda size ban makes sense, even if you still dissagree with it for ideological reasons (which is still a respectable thing to do). Or we can wait a few years and see if the average soda intake has dimminished in NYC and if we can attribute that to the soda size ban. Otherwise, yawn.

    2) I am a political scientist. I am interested (in both a theoretical and a practical level) in policy, politics (as in political economy, congressional studies, comparative politics and such) and research methodology. I have no real interest in discussing political theory. Yes, I quoted Rawls back in the first page of the thread, but that doesn't mean I want to engage in a political theory discussion. I don't want to talk about the role of the state because your arguments are typically Libertarian, so I'm pretty sure I already know what you'll say. Hence, I have ZERO desire of engaging in what will ammount to a dialogue between deaf persons: I know what you'll say, I'm positive you won't stop thinking it's wrong to do it and I know I won't change my mind. So what's the point?

    3) You can't say there is no reason to think a law will have the effects it's supposed to have, just because you dissagree with them. If you don't agree with the reasons for the law, that's fine and it's your opinion. But please understand there is a conceptual difference between an immoral law and an ineffective law. For a law to be ineffective it has to fail to have the effect that it's supposed to have. For a law to be immoral, it has to go against a certain ser of beliefs and values (morals). Do you have comparative evidence of its ineffectiveness? Show it (here's some: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/11/science/la-sci-small-sodas-20130411). Strong theorietical reasons to believe it won't work? Explain them. Otherwise, argue all you want about the morality of a law... With someone else.

    4) My whole point in this discussion is that you can't call someone a "psychopath" or psychotic just because they support something you don't. I've explained over and over that there are reasons (based on empirical and experimental evidence) to think that the soda ban will have an effect on soda intake, yet you keep saying it won't have any effect at all, but fail to provide evidence to support your point and keep arguing that the law is wrong. It may be. I don't care (seriously) and I will not argue about that.

    5) I'm not saying the soda size ban will work (I even presented an article reporting a paper that strongly implies it won't!). I just want you to understand that there is a difference between the effect of a law or a policy and its morality.

    Where is th like button on this forum? I need it
    La sabiduría me persigue................pero yo soy más rápida
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Thu May 23, 2013 2:56 am

    Irrelevant for you, not for me.


    Great. Have fun discussing it with yourself or someone else then.

    Does not mean I'm saying it won't work. Just that evidence supports either hypothesis.


    Again, not the point (even though you conceded it wouldn't work).

    You do realize that public policy, comparative politics, political methodology, congressional studies, political economy, etc. are part of "politics", right? The thread is not just about political theory.


    You commented on something I said, then said you didn't want to discuss what I was discussing. That makes no sense to me. I.e., I was talking about how ridiculous and stupid some of Bloomberg's laws were because they were intrusive, and you start arguing over crap like visual cues in advertising. I don't get it. If you're not interested in what's being discussed, you're more than free to avoid the conversation.

    Yet you failed to provide evidence to support your claim.


    Why do I need to when you conceded it? Besides, ONCE AGAIN (repeating myself), I only mentioned the effectiveness of the law as an added reason for why it should never have been passed.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Thu May 23, 2013 3:16 am

    sageoftruth wrote:Hey, Blumpkin. I think you are misunderstanding X-Thor a bit. I got that impression when you stated that the effectiveness of the law was irrelevant. What we need to remember here is that this argument was not about the rightness or wrongness of the law, it was about whether or not we could decide beyond reasonable doubt that Bloomberg was the devil incarnate, figuratively speaking. One piece of course was deciding that the law was unethical. The other was deciding that he had no reason to pass the law except for the enjoyment of controlling people's lives. The first part was up for debate, but X-Thor did explain that there are psychological studies suggesting that it could make a change for the better. If Bloomberg believes that, then he has a reason to pass the law, making him possibly just a deluded knight templar rather than someone with wicked intent.

    On the other hand, I do agree that it was a strange law to pass considering all the other problems on the table. Also, X-Thor, I think Blumkin saved his argument sort of by mentioning how this law was only one of many lines that Bloomberg crossed. It wasn't a detailed answer, but as I posted earlier, it's hard to recall everything that led up to how you feel about someone. Besides, we all seem too tired/lazy to sit down and hear all of it. In the end, I think we just don't have enough information to get at whether or not Blumkin's accusation about Bloomberg's inner-nature is well-founded.

    Somehow I'm worried that I said something foolish or redundant here, but I'm hoping this managed to give the discussion some closure.


    If you want to discuss JUST the part about whether or not we could make some moral judgement on Bloomberg, fine. I will still stand by my initial claims. As I have repeatedly said, if you look at the bigger picture of the types of laws he's enacted, it does portray him as an authoritarian who wants to try to impose on others' lives. You have to remember laws are instruments of force. You HAVE to follow them or some sort of penalty is applied to you. So why's he trying to "improve" people's lives by force? People should want to fix these things themselves. I agree with the statement, "In a free society, things improve on their own." Again though, you have to look at the other laws and policies he's created or supported, not just this one thing; there's a PATTERN of behavior. You can debate whether he was well-meaning all you want, but if you look at his track record, what's not up for debate is that he wants to force societal ideas through his office, and this involves infringing on people's freedoms.

    And as far as my "accusation about Bloomberg's inner-nature is well-founded", hey, you can always look up the information yourself to see whether or not it is. Go look into how he rewarded the teacher's union there with a pay raise despite doing nothing about rubber rooms. Go look up how he admitted to smoking and even enjoying smoking pot in the past, yet supports locking people up for doing the same thing. Go look up how he supports the "Patriot Act". Oh, and more on diet, he supported a trans fat ban. Even his alleged budget balancing is dubious.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Thu May 23, 2013 7:38 am

    Blumpkin wrote:
    And as far as my "accusation about Bloomberg's inner-nature is well-founded", hey, you can always look up the information yourself to see whether or not it is.


    I could, but so far, I haven't, and I get the impression that this goes for a bunch of us on the forum. That's why we can't reach a proper conclusion to this discussion just yet. Anyway, I'll look into the topics you brought up about his stance on smoking, teaching, etc. We can continue from there, if I'm not already convinced by what I've read. My only fear is that my conclusion will depend entirely on which source I read it from. I guess that's what these discussions are for.
  • X-Thor
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2891
    Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:11 am
    Location: Mexico City, Mexico
    Contact:

    Re: Politics

    by X-Thor » Thu May 23, 2013 7:50 am

    Blumpkin wrote:Irrelevant for you, not for me.


    Great. Have fun discussing it with yourself or someone else then.

    Does not mean I'm saying it won't work. Just that evidence supports either hypothesis.


    Again, not the point (even though you conceded it wouldn't work).

    You do realize that public policy, comparative politics, political methodology, congressional studies, political economy, etc. are part of "politics", right? The thread is not just about political theory.


    You commented on something I said, then said you didn't want to discuss what I was discussing. That makes no sense to me. I.e., I was talking about how ridiculous and stupid some of Bloomberg's laws were because they were intrusive, and you start arguing over crap like visual cues in advertising. I don't get it. If you're not interested in what's being discussed, you're more than free to avoid the conversation.

    Yet you failed to provide evidence to support your claim.


    Why do I need to when you conceded it? Besides, ONCE AGAIN (repeating myself), I only mentioned the effectiveness of the law as an added reason for why it should never have been passed.


    Yaaaawn.
    70K 2013 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2120)
    70K 2014 SURVIVOR (Cabin 2565)

    In perpetual post-cruise depression/pre-cruise anxiety.

    Doing my best to be there for 2015.
    --
    Wishlist: Blind Guardian and Saurom. Will probably like 90%+ of the bands onbroad anyway.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Thu May 23, 2013 8:21 am

    Hey, Blumkin? Who said, "In a free society, things improve on their own."? It sounds interesting and I'd like the chance to follow the arguments behind the person who said it. As of now, I've only ever heard libertarian arguments from you and my one friend from the NRA, who's too wrapped up in conspiracy theories for me to take him seriously, so I'd feel much better-equipped for this discussion if you could recommend some online/offline reading materials.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Thu May 23, 2013 11:59 pm

    sageoftruth wrote:I could, but so far, I haven't, and I get the impression that this goes for a bunch of us on the forum. That's why we can't reach a proper conclusion to this discussion just yet. Anyway, I'll look into the topics you brought up about his stance on smoking, teaching, etc. We can continue from there, if I'm not already convinced by what I've read. My only fear is that my conclusion will depend entirely on which source I read it from. I guess that's what these discussions are for.


    Actually, who passed what bill is probably the easiest part of political discussions; there's hardly ever any controversy in that particular aspect.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Fri May 24, 2013 12:31 am

    sageoftruth wrote:Hey, Blumkin? Who said, "In a free society, things improve on their own."? It sounds interesting and I'd like the chance to follow the arguments behind the person who said it. As of now, I've only ever heard libertarian arguments from you and my one friend from the NRA, who's too wrapped up in conspiracy theories for me to take him seriously, so I'd feel much better-equipped for this discussion if you could recommend some online/offline reading materials.


    Well, I was thinking I heard it in a John Stossel piece (I'm an admitted John Stossel fanboy :P ), and after Googling it, lo and behold, it turns out he was the originator of that line -- that is, unless he heard it from someone else prior and simply paraphrased it, but that's the only thing I could find in the little time I spent Googling that exact line. Also, I stumbled on this short, simple article that I think sums up a lot of positions I have rather nicely. Trust me, it's a short read, and nothing complicated, even if you find some things disagreeable or controversial:

    http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/self-he ... ee-society

    Anyway, I really enjoy Stossel's pieces. He goes into a lot of things I don't think other journalists -- at least on TV that is -- bother with, such as laws that prevented a woman from using an old mansion she bought for a bed and breakfast place, and how the New York cab medallions prevent small cab companies from being able to compete with the big ones. I'm watching one right now on how Obamacare will affect our health care system, and alternatives to it that would improve our health care system (e.g. they feature a hospital that posts their prices for surgeries online).

    As for conspiracy theories, you know, I'm really not too good with those. I don't know much about any particular conspiracy theory. The problem with my ignorance on them is:

    a. I don't usually have a great deal of interest in them in the first place. Usually I find more "relateable" issues, such as with health care and foreign policy, more interesting. The "conspiracy theory" stuff may very well be important to understand, but I just usually find myself prioritizing the other stuff.

    b. It's so damn hard to sort out the truth from the bullshit! Usually with other controversial issues, such as the War on Drugs, it's much easier to have or find representatives on each side of the issue directly debating one another, or at least countering each others' points indirectly, i.e. articles that aren't written in a "back-and-forth" debate. I can then sort out what I feel is more true or effective. With conspiracy theories, I'll hear one thing for maybe why the conspiracy is bull, but then another person will give a totally new reason I've never heard before why it's true. For example, there's a lot of talk of how the Twin Towers crumbled like they were destroyed by a controlled demolition, but I've heard reasons for why they fell that way, but then I'll hear a completely new explanation for how they were deliberately demolished. I hope I'm explaining this clearly, but with conspiracy theories, I feel as if someone could give almost any reason for why the conspiracy theory is true, and that the onus is on the person who disbelieve the conspiracy theory, as in, "Well, if the conspiracy theory's not true, then how do you explain such and such?" To me it is often a big hassle to sort out, especially since so often the non-conspiracy theory side is (allegedly) always "hiding the truth".

    I will say, however, I'm more inclined to believe a conspiracy theory if the CIA is involved. The stuff that's on record that the CIA HAS done is quite shocking, so there's really no telling of what other horrors and atrocities they've been involved in. CIA = large criminal organization, funded in part by our tax dollars. (Note the "in part" part, meaning they get some outside of Congress....)
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Fri May 24, 2013 1:48 pm

    Blumpkin wrote:
    sageoftruth wrote:I could, but so far, I haven't, and I get the impression that this goes for a bunch of us on the forum. That's why we can't reach a proper conclusion to this discussion just yet. Anyway, I'll look into the topics you brought up about his stance on smoking, teaching, etc. We can continue from there, if I'm not already convinced by what I've read. My only fear is that my conclusion will depend entirely on which source I read it from. I guess that's what these discussions are for.


    Actually, who passed what bill is probably the easiest part of political discussions; there's hardly ever any controversy in that particular aspect.


    True. That alone probably won't be enough since knowing why he passed them is also important for this. To do that, I'd probably need to read up on various people's theories about him, as well as a short biography of him. On the other hand, I'm also getting the impression that judging Bloomberg as a person is sidetracking us from what you really want to talk about on this thread. Let me know if that's the case. Anyway, I'm going to do an iBooks search for some Stossel books. My "Frames of Mind" book that I'm reading now it putting me to sleep.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Fri May 24, 2013 3:50 pm

    sageoftruth wrote:True. That alone probably won't be enough since knowing why he passed them is also important for this. To do that, I'd probably need to read up on various people's theories about him, as well as a short biography of him. On the other hand, I'm also getting the impression that judging Bloomberg as a person is sidetracking us from what you really want to talk about on this thread. Let me know if that's the case. Anyway, I'm going to do an iBooks search for some Stossel books. My "Frames of Mind" book that I'm reading now it putting me to sleep.


    Yes, just saying the voting record is pretty uncontroversial; there's no real argument over whether or not someone voted for a bill.

    The problem with "getting into the reason why they voted how they did" is often there is a very good SOUNDING reason behind it: he wants people to be healthier, cut down on pollution, reward teachers, who have very difficult and valuable jobs, etc. Same could be said about politicians OTHER than Bloomberg: George W. Bush wanted to make us and the rest of the world safer when he went to war with Iraq. I'm sure sometimes the stated reasons do not match the real reasons (hidden agendas), but the point is good-sounding intentions don't necessarily indicate good intentions, and they certainly don't amount to good results. Maybe Bloomberg wants people to be healthier, but he probably also feels it's within his moral right to try to control people's personal choices in what they put in their bodies. Keep in mind, this man admitted to smoking pot and enjoying it, but even though he did no one harm but at worst himself in the process, he still firmly believes in locking people up in jail for doing the same thing he did.

    Anyway, yes, I do feel the Bloomberg thing was a bit of an unnecessary tangent, but I don't/didn't mind talking about it. He's just one example of many I can think of when I think about a politician run amok.

    As for Stossel, he does have some very interesting-looking books I've been wanting to read but just haven't gotten around to it. (I have several other books I haven't even started yet.) His latest one is no exception, and fortunately has good reviews:

    http://www.amazon.com/They-Cant-Governm ... 1451640943

    However, I'd recommend YouTube-ing someone of his pieces if you are pressed for time on books. There's a bunch of videos there, not just from his news pieces but interviews others have done with him and lectures. For an eye-opener, watch "Illegal Everything". You'll be shocked at some of the stories in it.
  • EvilDan
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2902
    Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:05 am
    Location: Dallas

    Re: Politics

    by EvilDan » Thu May 30, 2013 3:27 pm

    So now that the above tangent has run its course, the interesting question was avoided. What is the justification for restricting or taking away freedoms?
    Never take anything I say seriously.

    Am I Evil? I am Dan. Yes, I am! :twisted:
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Fri May 31, 2013 12:43 pm

    EvilDan wrote:So now that the above tangent has run its course, the interesting question was avoided. What is the justification for restricting or taking away freedoms?


    Off the top of my head, the only one that comes to mind is keeping others from restricting or taking away freedoms. I once heard the quote, "Even in a free society, your freedoms will end with the next guy." It brings to mind the "Do What You Feel Day" episode of the Simpsons, where Bart incited a holiday where everyone got to do whatever they wanted. A bunch of people left work and went to ride on a ferris wheel, which then collapsed because the maintenance guy didn't feel like checking the screws on it. This is clearly an extreme case, but it shows that as long as we exist in an inter-dependent society, we have to deal with rules, obligations and limitations. Without those, who will stop me from running around town, randomly pantsing every person who lets his pants hang below his belt line (I've always wanted to do that)?

    Of course, restricting the people's freedom isn't always worth the payoff, and I'm not sure we can objectively say what freedoms are worth restricting, since everyone has something they really wish other people wouldn't do.
  • EvilDan
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2902
    Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:05 am
    Location: Dallas

    Re: Politics

    by EvilDan » Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:27 pm

    sageoftruth wrote:Of course, restricting the people's freedom isn't always worth the payoff, and I'm not sure we can objectively say what freedoms are worth restricting, since everyone has something they really wish other people wouldn't do.

    This is the bothersome statement. I may have a personal opinion on things I wish people wouldn't do, but at no time do I think the solution is to get the force of government to mandate my preferences on EVERYONE.

    Other people find this perfectly reasonable. But I just don't understand it.

    (And if you've never pants anyone, I recommend you try it at least once. Be more sober than your target, plan an escape route, (wtf am i talking about, you've played assassin's creed) and if you can, make it Ryan on the pool deck of 70K 2014. Warn the photographers.)
    Never take anything I say seriously.

    Am I Evil? I am Dan. Yes, I am! :twisted:
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:01 am

    EvilDan wrote:
    sageoftruth wrote:Of course, restricting the people's freedom isn't always worth the payoff, and I'm not sure we can objectively say what freedoms are worth restricting, since everyone has something they really wish other people wouldn't do.

    This is the bothersome statement. I may have a personal opinion on things I wish people wouldn't do, but at no time do I think the solution is to get the force of government to mandate my preferences on EVERYONE.

    Other people find this perfectly reasonable. But I just don't understand it.

    (And if you've never pants anyone, I recommend you try it at least once. Be more sober than your target, plan an escape route, (wtf am i talking about, you've played assassin's creed) and if you can, make it Ryan on the pool deck of 70K 2014. Warn the photographers.)

    If Ryan ever decides to go "gangsta" and let his pants hang low, I'll get right on it.

    Meanwhile, I agree that turning to the government shouldn't be the go-to solution for petty gripes, but you do at least agree that there are things that should be outlawed by the government right? Particularly things that already are outlawed like murder, arson, theft, etc. The question is, what draws the line between murder (illegal) and calling someone a fag online (legal)? Forbidding either of them is a restriction on our freedom, but I certainly don't want murder to become legal (and I as much as I dislike online harassment, I'm not sure I want to worry about going to jail or getting fined for saying the wrong thing).

    The point I'm trying to make is that even freedom can be taken too far, and various people are going to disagree on what counts as going too far.
    Last edited by sageoftruth on Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:26 am

    Regarding the justification for restricting or taking away freedoms, two things that came to mind were justice and security, two things we rebelled against nature for in the first place thousands of years ago. Most laws seem to revolve around at least one of these two ideals. People may be willing to sacrifice some of their freedom because they feel threatened by something and want the law to protect them. Otherwise, they feel that something just isn't fair in society and support a law to pass that.

    I'd consider Bloomberg's soda law to fall loosely within security, since the only justification I can think of is dealing with the threat of obesity.

    Blumkin mentioned earlier that laws aren't the only way to solve problems. As a result, I figure that another factor may be a lack of faith in people and human nature. It doesn't have to be a lack of faith in everyone, when it involves matters where one bad apple is enough to cause a major catastrophe. We all know that our entire population has some real scumbags hidden within it somewhere. Otherwise, it may be a lack of faith in human nature itself. That had to be the case with Bloomberg's law, since one obese person is no national emergency. I've heard lectures about how our culture has evolved to make it really hard to lose weight. It still seems like a stretch to use the government to try and combat it.

    I guess the bottom line is that we show willingness to restrict freedoms out of a desire for security or justice, and a lack of faith in human nature, or a situation that cannot afford to trust an entire population.
  • EvilDan
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2902
    Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:05 am
    Location: Dallas

    Re: Politics

    by EvilDan » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:43 pm

    "Those willing to sacrifice freedom for security will receive, and deserve, neither." Benjamin Franklin

    For simplicity of the argument, let's agree that laws are the domain of the government. I neglected to mention that I'm still assuming Jake's ABCs as a starting point in justifying restriction and removal of freedoms. (Do no harm, and take responsibility for your actions, essentially.) So from that perspective.....

    Actually, moving on to your 2nd post, I think you are very close to the mark when saying there is a lack of trust in humanity to make the right decisions. Therefore, they look to the force of government to MANDATE everyone to make certain decisions. (Because government is so much better at deciding what's best for individuals and providing services in an efficient way.) :roll:

    I have so much to say on this point, but my motivation for creating this thread is no longer present. I have a new goal in mind. :twisted:

    And no one was willing to stand up for any liberal cause and challenge me. :evil:
    Never take anything I say seriously.

    Am I Evil? I am Dan. Yes, I am! :twisted:
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:30 am

    EvilDan wrote:So now that the above tangent has run its course, the interesting question was avoided. What is the justification for restricting or taking away freedoms?


    I don't remember this question being posed, so I don't have much context for it. I certainly think a good understanding of what "freedom" means in this case is absolutely necessary. I don't think you should be "free" to physically attack someone, but I do think you should be "free" to say what you think of someone, even if they don't like it and find it hurtful. Additionally, we're talking about the legal sense here, meaning there are many things you shouldn't do because they're wrong in some way or the other, but that doesn't mean the government should always stop you from doing it.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:16 am

    sageoftruth wrote:Meanwhile, I agree that turning to the government shouldn't be the go-to solution for petty gripes, but you do at least agree that there are things that should be outlawed by the government right? Particularly things that already are outlawed like murder, arson, theft, etc. The question is, what draws the line between murder (illegal) and calling someone a fag online (legal)? Forbidding either of them is a restriction on our freedom, but I certainly don't want murder to become legal (and I as much as I dislike online harassment, I'm not sure I want to worry about going to jail or getting fined for saying the wrong thing).

    The point I'm trying to make is that even freedom can be taken too far, and various people are going to disagree on what counts as going too far.


    Sage, it's important to understand, as I said to EvilDan above, that "freedom" in this sense isn't "freedom to do anything". Freedom here is defined in the sense of allowing people to make choices for themselves without preventing others from making the same choices. Strangely enough, I couldn't find any good definition of "freedom" in this sense with a quick Google search, but there are plenty of things out there to read about. I don't think all the slaves wanted freedom so they could go out and commit murder, but rather so they could live their lives without someone controlling them against their will. The difference between murder and calling someone a fag is that the latter doesn't stop that person from living their life, for example.

    People may be willing to sacrifice some of their freedom because they feel threatened by something and want the law to protect them. Otherwise, they feel that something just isn't fair in society and support a law to pass that.


    EvilDan beat me to that famous Franklin quote. The notion of total security is nothing but a myth, a carrot dangled in front of scared citizens in order to get them to agree with the passage of some law that further erodes their freedoms.

    I'd consider Bloomberg's soda law to fall loosely within security, since the only justification I can think of is dealing with the threat of obesity.


    Yeah, if obesity were actually a "threat". It's not though. How could anyone think obesity is a "threat"? Might as well stop the "threat" of bad teeth by mandating tooth brushing! Like I said earlier, there are always "justifications" for passing laws, but often those reasons are bogus, and however moral or conscientious that politician is in supporting the law, that doesn't change the effects of it.

    Blumkin mentioned earlier that laws aren't the only way to solve problems.


    Yes, I perhaps did mention that, but even more so, laws often aren't the solution AT ALL. We have hundreds of thousands of laws on the books, and yet most of the same problems those laws were supposed to solve still exist, sometimes even worse. Only now, there are so many hurdles to jump over and obstacles to go around in order to avoid doing something illegal. Taking Bloomberg's law as an example, people are still fat and still drink too much soda, but now the restaurants have to pay extra attention to the size of the cups they sell so they don't get fined.

    As a result, I figure that another factor may be a lack of faith in people and human nature. It doesn't have to be a lack of faith in everyone, when it involves matters where one bad apple is enough to cause a major catastrophe. We all know that our entire population has some real scumbags hidden within it somewhere. Otherwise, it may be a lack of faith in human nature itself. That had to be the case with Bloomberg's law, since one obese person is no national emergency. I've heard lectures about how our culture has evolved to make it really hard to lose weight. It still seems like a stretch to use the government to try and combat it.

    I guess the bottom line is that we show willingness to restrict freedoms out of a desire for security or justice, and a lack of faith in human nature, or a situation that cannot afford to trust an entire population.


    We certainly have lost faith in the individual, community, the market and even capitalism, but that has mostly come as a result of government propaganda. Politicians figure that they are paid to make laws, so if there's a problem, then they think the way to show them "doing something about it" is to pass a law, and when that law doesn't fix the problem or make it worse, they say they need another law passed, and on and on it goes. They then try to keep convincing the people that they need the politicians to solve these problems for the people to get the people to keep electing the politicians into office. "How are you going to afford health care if you don't have the right politician on your side? Vote for me! I can help you get affordable, quality health insurance!" History has shown us that governments grow, and as a result the people become complacent and dependent on government. I don't think it's so much a personal lack of faith that people just develop from watching all the fucked up things happen in the world and then becoming cynical, but rather because they have become conditioned to depend on laws and government to fix things, and this dependency is in fact intentionally created by the politicians for their own personal gain.

    As for our culture making it hard to lose weight, I can see some truth to that since there's so much crap food out there on the market, and good food can be hard to find, but on the other hand we have a lot more technology now to help people lose weight, what with the internet and all these home exercise programs and such, so I don't totally buy society makes it "hard" to lose weight. However, the ironic thing is the government is largely responsible for the volume of crap food out there. See me link on the food subsidies.

    Even still, if people want to be fat, let them be fat! Part of freedom is the freedom to make bad choices. Bloomberg has no business trying to force people to lose weight, even indirectly.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:01 am

    EvilDan wrote:
    I have so much to say on this point, but my motivation for creating this thread is no longer present. I have a new goal in mind. :twisted:

    And no one was willing to stand up for any liberal cause and challenge me. :evil:


    Yeah, it is kind of a bummer that I'm the only guy here to challenge you two right now, and I'm only liberal in the sense that I'm not invested in any opposing parties (and grew up in Massachusetts). Still, if we've got patience, maybe we can slowly work towards the truth, provided that the truth exists. So, what have you got in mind, anyway?

    Also, thanks, Blumkin for clarifying freedom for me there. This should give us some more focus. I'll get back to you on that one.

    I agree that people's reasons for laws aren't always good ones. As a frequent internet dweller and video gamer, I'm all too familiar with the attempts to pass ACTA, or the efforts by Jack Thompson to get certain games banned. Both came from appeals to security, and that's where I got to watch congressmen with little to no experience with either medium decide whether or not to pass laws on it. As metalheads, many of us are familiar with Tipper Gore's attacks on metal from long ago.

    Still, it is people who often push for these laws. Jack Thompson was just a simple lawyer. I think we all agree at this point that faith in people is a major factor in this discussion, and if I'm to be convinced, I need someone to show me that I can trust people. I've seen companies find ways to circumvent the rules of the market to get away with making money without serving the interests of the people. Often by doing exactly the opposite. Am I to believe that Occupy Wall Street (as much as I disliked it) was inspired entirely by government propaganda, and that the problems caused by the banks were all one big lie?
    More constructively, without the help of laws, what do we the people plan to do about it?
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:13 pm

    EvilDan wrote:
    And no one was willing to stand up for any liberal cause and challenge me. :evil:



    I've got good news, Dan. I let my boss in on what we've been talking about. Didn't necessarily say that I was doing it at work, but my boss would have a lot more to say than I would, and is a very worldly and intelligent man. We both agreed that at some point when we're both not too busy, I'll let him use my account to say a few things about our discussion. Hopefully it will take it in some exciting new directions.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:19 pm

    sageoftruth wrote:I agree that people's reasons for laws aren't always good ones. As a frequent internet dweller and video gamer, I'm all too familiar with the attempts to pass ACTA, or the efforts by Jack Thompson to get certain games banned. Both came from appeals to security, and that's where I got to watch congressmen with little to no experience with either medium decide whether or not to pass laws on it. As metalheads, many of us are familiar with Tipper Gore's attacks on metal from long ago.


    A direct attack on the Constitution, and regardless, there have never been any credible studies showing a link between violence (or satanism for that matter) and video games or music. It's just the nonsense of a bunch of scared, overly religious housewives with nothing better to do, and shame on Tipper Gore and the rest of those busy bodies for using their husbands' connections to waste taxpayer money on something so unconstitutional and disgusting.

    Still, it is people who often push for these laws. Jack Thompson was just a simple lawyer. I think we all agree at this point that faith in people is a major factor in this discussion, and if I'm to convinced, I need someone to show me that I can trust people.


    True, it is often people who push for these laws, but these people have a misunderstanding on how society and/or the market works and the effects such laws actually have (the unintended consequences). Sometimes there's honest, good intentions, and sometimes not so good ones. Either way, the politicians encourage such behavior to gain power and votes, because after all, if the politicians simply stuck to their oaths and didn't try to increase their power for the sake of having more power, these people's pleas for more laws to restrict what we can do in our lives wouldn't go far. (I actually said something along similar lines in regards to campaign finance reform a while back.) Imagine what would have happened if Congress simply ignored PRMC's protests and told them music was protected under free speech. They probably would have shut up after a while and the whole thing would have blown over. They wouldn't have any reason to picket in the street because the government wouldn't have had any basis for doing something about it, the same reason there aren't people picketing in the street over "offensive" books.

    Anyway, as far as "trust" goes, I'm of the belief that people can take care of themselves better than the government. What actual societal problems other than legitimate crime has the government solved? None as far as I can see.

    . I've seen companies find ways to circumvent the rules of the market to get away with making money without serving the interests of the people. Often by doing exactly the opposite. Am I to believe that Occupy Wall Street (as much as I disliked it) was inspired entirely by government propaganda, and that the problems caused by the banks were all one big lie? More constructively, without the help of laws, what do we the people plan to do about it?


    I'm a believer in the market and capitalism. I've found a lot of the "evil capitalist" claims are just myths. Think about it. The only way a business can thrive without using coercion, either by direct force or the force of government, or outright fraud is it has to provide you with the best commodity and price. It HAS to "serve the interest of the people" by creating stuff they want to buy, because if they don't, they don't get any money. The whole giant lobbyist situation has been created because companies are fighting over whom the government helps or doesn't hurt. So I don't buy into the idea that business people need to be restrained and controlled for the most part. Yes, they can't rip you off by promising you one thing and then delivering another, and they can't dump toxic waste into the water supply, but beyond stuff like that it should be all free enterprise. People can decide for themselves the best commodities to buy and how to best live their lives.

    The OWS stuff.... Well, to be blunt, I've heard nothing but bad things about it from people who have actually gone by the protests, what with the protestors disrupting traffic, becoming a haven for bums/homeless people who have no interest in the protest and just in general the really DUMB things they protest FOR. I think they're right for protesting the bailouts and things like that, but their solutions are just more government, and even worse, more welfare for THEM. It's like they want to shift the handouts in their favor, not create a true capitalist market. I haven't actually been to one or even by one (I'm never in the downtown area where I live), but I watched a two-hour video (well, more like listened as I was cleaning and stuff) of a free market capitalist go around and ask them questions and debate them about their viewpoints, and most of them were full of misinformation and even flat out nonsense. It was truly shocking some of the things they had to say, and, no, the video wasn't edited to find the dumbest, most ridiculous people there. It was shot in complete continuity; it wasn't like some Jay Leno "jaywalking" segment.

    So to get back to your point, the government didn't manipulate the people into protesting the bailouts and creating OWS, but it does as it always has manipulates them to protest for more power to the government, and while the government pretends to be on their side, it's really just trying to get them votes so they can stay in office while still maintaining the same powerful friends who line their pockets. They need the votes from the people and the money from the interest groups.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:15 am

    Sorry I'm taking so long. There was a lot of economic stuff in your response that I lack the know-how to respond to, so I'm trying to get a second opinion from my father. He's a real heavy hitter in the financial department.

    I completely agree about the Occupy Movement. Personally, I've only ever seen them on TV, but from the moment they arose as a movement, they've been little more than an additional Tea Party in my mind. Although I haven't been to any of their events yet, I receive E-mails from an allegedly centrist group called the Coffee Party. I'm not certain about how centrist they really are, but I do respect their interest in using words and discussion rather than angrily shouting everything in the streets and causing a ruckus.

    Anyway, I sent a link to my father and I'm awaiting his response in my E-mail. Also, I'll try and get my boss involved quickly. He's a busy guy, but he is genuinely interested in our discussion.
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:29 am

    sageoftruth wrote:Sorry I'm taking so long. There was a lot of economic stuff in your response that I lack the know-how to respond to, so I'm trying to get a second opinion from my father. He's a real heavy hitter in the financial department.

    I completely agree about the Occupy Movement. Personally, I've only ever seen them on TV, but from the moment they arose as a movement, they've been little more than an additional Tea Party in my mind. Although I haven't been to any of their events yet, I receive E-mails from an allegedly centrist group called the Coffee Party. I'm not certain about how centrist they really are, but I do respect their interest in using words and discussion rather than angrily shouting everything in the streets and causing a ruckus.

    Anyway, I sent a link to my father and I'm awaiting his response in my E-mail. Also, I'll try and get my boss involved quickly. He's a busy guy, but he is genuinely interested in our discussion.


    The Tea Party is a totally different story; they've basically been infiltrated and taken over by a bunch of neocons and other assholes who have no idea what they're talking about. It's really sad that they've been besmirched as this "radical" group of racists and crazies, because really when you look at the legitimate positions of theirs, given by credible sources, it's really not all that extreme: balanced budgets and constitutional, limited government. It's nothing but reverting to the ways of the old really.

    OWS is not at all aligned with this. Perhaps there are some Tea Party members in it (legitimate or crazy), but the two groups aren't hand in hand. It's an organized protest and all, but from what I've seen they don't have any uniform positions outside of opposing bailouts and Washington helping large corporations. From what I've heard, a lot of them call for more regulation, higher taxes on the rich, fair trade, etc., but there's also some discrepancies in these, so I can't really say they all agree with each other for the most part other than being angry over the crashing economy and dwindling middle class. I definitely don't agree with most of what I've heard them say though, and again, I watched a two-hour-long video of a guy going around and talking to them, unedited, and debating them on some/most of their positions.

    One thing that always struck me as odd about OWS is some of the protestors from what I hear spend all their time protesting for days or weeks even. Don't these people have jobs and lives to attend to? I know this may not apply to the general protestors, but there are some in there that seem to just have nothing better to do than hold a sign and yell at these things all day long.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:12 pm

    Blumpkin wrote:
    sageoftruth wrote:Sorry I'm taking so long. There was a lot of economic stuff in your response that I lack the know-how to respond to, so I'm trying to get a second opinion from my father. He's a real heavy hitter in the financial department.

    I completely agree about the Occupy Movement. Personally, I've only ever seen them on TV, but from the moment they arose as a movement, they've been little more than an additional Tea Party in my mind. Although I haven't been to any of their events yet, I receive E-mails from an allegedly centrist group called the Coffee Party. I'm not certain about how centrist they really are, but I do respect their interest in using words and discussion rather than angrily shouting everything in the streets and causing a ruckus.

    Anyway, I sent a link to my father and I'm awaiting his response in my E-mail. Also, I'll try and get my boss involved quickly. He's a busy guy, but he is genuinely interested in our discussion.


    The Tea Party is a totally different story; they've basically been infiltrated and taken over by a bunch of neocons and other assholes who have no idea what they're talking about. It's really sad that they've been besmirched as this "radical" group of racists and crazies, because really when you look at the legitimate positions of theirs, given by credible sources, it's really not all that extreme: balanced budgets and constitutional, limited government. It's nothing but reverting to the ways of the old really.

    OWS is not at all aligned with this. Perhaps there are some Tea Party members in it (legitimate or crazy), but the two groups aren't hand in hand. It's an organized protest and all, but from what I've seen they don't have any uniform positions outside of opposing bailouts and Washington helping large corporations. From what I've heard, a lot of them call for more regulation, higher taxes on the rich, fair trade, etc., but there's also some discrepancies in these, so I can't really say they all agree with each other for the most part other than being angry over the crashing economy and dwindling middle class. I definitely don't agree with most of what I've heard them say though, and again, I watched a two-hour-long video of a guy going around and talking to them, unedited, and debating them on some/most of their positions.

    One thing that always struck me as odd about OWS is some of the protestors from what I hear spend all their time protesting for days or weeks even. Don't these people have jobs and lives to attend to? I know this may not apply to the general protestors, but there are some in there that seem to just have nothing better to do than hold a sign and yell at these things all day long.


    Still, they have the first thing in common. The part about being "taken over by neocons and assholes who have no idea what they're talking about"? I'm not interested in being a part of any group like that. Any idea, no matter how wonderful tends to go down the drain when placed in the hands of a crummy leader. Sometimes I wonder how a dictatorship would fare if it was placed in the hands of a well-meaning and competent ruler, rather than some upstart winner of a recent military coup.

    Then again, back to the Tea Party, they've been pretty fishy to me ever since they came into the limelight. How long have they existed? Would you say they were kind of like Islam in that no one noticed them until they got hijacked by a bunch of crazy guys? Basically, the first time I heard of them was when they were asking Obama for his birth certificate. Did the Tea Party exist as the Tea Party before Obama's presidency?
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:59 am

    sageoftruth wrote:Still, they have the first thing in common. The part about being "taken over by neocons and assholes who have no idea what they're talking about"? I'm not interested in being a part of any group like that. Any idea, no matter how wonderful tends to go down the drain when placed in the hands of a crummy leader. Sometimes I wonder how a dictatorship would fare if it was placed in the hands of a well-meaning and competent ruler, rather than some upstart winner of a recent military coup.

    Then again, back to the Tea Party, they've been pretty fishy to me ever since they came into the limelight. How long have they existed? Would you say they were kind of like Islam in that no one noticed them until they got hijacked by a bunch of crazy guys? Basically, the first time I heard of them was when they were asking Obama for his birth certificate. Did the Tea Party exist as the Tea Party before Obama's presidency?


    I think they've gotten a bad rap. You can look up their core beliefs very easily, and like I said, none of it sounds "extreme" or anything like the critics claim. All that stuff about the racism and weird things like that, not to mention backing people who very much AREN'T for the stuff the Tea Party is SUPPOSED to be for, like Michele Bachmann, I think that's a combination of the infiltration thing I mentioned above as well as media smearing. To me the real Tea Party doesn't or wouldn't back people like Bachmann, because what she does doesn't align her with what they really stand for. In actuality, politicians like her are in complete defiance of things like limited government and constitutional spending. Also to, there's no real "leader" as far as I know in the Tea Party. From what I understand, it's a big collection of grassroots members with no central organization or leadership, unlike political parties.

    I don't know where the movement/group came from exactly or for how long, but supposedly it came about after Ron Paul's 2008 campaign, as I've heard him often cited as the "godfather" of the Tea Party, even though he had no hand in actually intentionally establishing anything organized under that specific name, but from what I know they were definitely noticed around then, and I didn't hear any of the crazy antics at least on the mainstream news. That all didn't happen until a bit later on. I think the "birther" thing came a little bit later as well, or at least gained notoriety then. It's hard to say because I didn't research exactly when all of this stuff came about, and you can't totally rely on when the media reports all this stuff because it could have happened quite a bit prior.

    As far as your dictatorship scenario, no, that has never, ever worked, and will never, ever work. Even George Washington refused to be crowned king of America for the very reason that such a concentration of power in one single person has always ended badly. The fairy tale ending of the noble king taking the throne and his kingdom living in great prosperity under his rule and all that only exist in fairy tales, not real life. Even good intentions don't necessarily end in good results, which is something I've stated repeatedly in discussions prior. We have a system of checks and balances for this very reason, although it's often abused and ignored at this stage of the game, which is why things like capitalism and democracy get such a bad rap. Even the POTUS was never designed to have as much power as he does now. I think that "power corrupts" line has a lot of truth to it, and even more so, a dictator, however sincere, honest and conscientious they are, can be swayed to make bad decisions by those who don't share his good intentions and competency.
  • sageoftruth
    Lieutenant
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm
    Location: Boston, MA

    Re: Politics

    by sageoftruth » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:22 am

    Blumpkin wrote:
    sageoftruth wrote:Still, they have the first thing in common. The part about being "taken over by neocons and assholes who have no idea what they're talking about"? I'm not interested in being a part of any group like that. Any idea, no matter how wonderful tends to go down the drain when placed in the hands of a crummy leader. Sometimes I wonder how a dictatorship would fare if it was placed in the hands of a well-meaning and competent ruler, rather than some upstart winner of a recent military coup.

    Then again, back to the Tea Party, they've been pretty fishy to me ever since they came into the limelight. How long have they existed? Would you say they were kind of like Islam in that no one noticed them until they got hijacked by a bunch of crazy guys? Basically, the first time I heard of them was when they were asking Obama for his birth certificate. Did the Tea Party exist as the Tea Party before Obama's presidency?


    I think they've gotten a bad rap. You can look up their core beliefs very easily, and like I said, none of it sounds "extreme" or anything like the critics claim. All that stuff about the racism and weird things like that, not to mention backing people who very much AREN'T for the stuff the Tea Party is SUPPOSED to be for, like Michele Bachmann, I think that's a combination of the infiltration thing I mentioned above as well as media smearing. To me the real Tea Party doesn't or wouldn't back people like Bachmann, because what she does doesn't align her with what they really stand for. In actuality, politicians like her are in complete defiance of things like limited government and constitutional spending. Also to, there's no real "leader" as far as I know in the Tea Party. From what I understand, it's a big collection of grassroots members with no central organization or leadership, unlike political parties.

    I don't know where the movement/group came from exactly or for how long, but supposedly it came about after Ron Paul's 2008 campaign, as I've heard him often cited as the "godfather" of the Tea Party, even though he had no hand in actually intentionally establishing anything organized under that specific name, but from what I know they were definitely noticed around then, and I didn't hear any of the crazy antics at least on the mainstream news. That all didn't happen until a bit later on. I think the "birther" thing came a little bit later as well, or at least gained notoriety then. It's hard to say because I didn't research exactly when all of this stuff came about, and you can't totally rely on when the media reports all this stuff because it could have happened quite a bit prior.

    As far as your dictatorship scenario, no, that has never, ever worked, and will never, ever work. Even George Washington refused to be crowned king of America for the very reason that such a concentration of power in one single person has always ended badly. The fairy tale ending of the noble king taking the throne and his kingdom living in great prosperity under his rule and all that only exist in fairy tales, not real life. Even good intentions don't necessarily end in good results, which is something I've stated repeatedly in discussions prior. We have a system of checks and balances for this very reason, although it's often abused and ignored at this stage of the game, which is why things like capitalism and democracy get such a bad rap. Even the POTUS was never designed to have as much power as he does now. I think that "power corrupts" line has a lot of truth to it, and even more so, a dictator, however sincere, honest and conscientious they are, can be swayed to make bad decisions by those who don't share his good intentions and competency.


    I definitely agree with you on that last part. Democracy has been abused pretty badly. It always bothers me how elections reek of manipulation and dishonestly. I bet there would be a higher voter turnout if people could more easily figure out who they were voting for and didn't have to pick out the truth from among all the lies. If there's anything I'm truly aligned with in politics right now, its the desire to restore everyone's trust in each other. I feel like no one in politics trusts each other anymore and thus everyone feels like they have to resort to underhanded tactics like mudslinging and appeals to petty ideologies that won't have any effect on the country, lest they be overcome by the underhanded tactics of their opponents.

    It was good to hear that Michele Bachmann did not properly represent what the Tea Party stood for. That gives me some faith in them. I must admit, you've got me interested in learning more about the Tea Party. Do you know a good online source for doing that, or even a book?
  • Blumpkin
    Petty Officer
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 am
    Location: Yugoslavia

    Re: Politics

    by Blumpkin » Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:41 pm

    sageoftruth wrote:I definitely agree with you on that last part. Democracy has been abused pretty badly. It always bothers me how elections reek of manipulation and dishonestly. I bet there would be a higher voter turnout if people could more easily figure out who they were voting for and didn't have to pick out the truth from among all the lies. If there's anything I'm truly aligned with in politics right now, its the desire to restore everyone's trust in each other. I feel like no one in politics trusts each other anymore and thus everyone feels like they have to resort to underhanded tactics like mudslinging and appeals to petty ideologies that won't have any effect on the country, lest they be overcome by the underhanded tactics of their opponents.

    It was good to hear that Michele Bachmann did not properly represent what the Tea Party stood for. That gives me some faith in them. I must admit, you've got me interested in learning more about the Tea Party. Do you know a good online source for doing that, or even a book?


    As much as the elections are full of bullshit, people know -- or at least sort of know this, for the most part -- and still eat it up. I personally have not seen any real difference between the two major party candidates in every election I've been involved in, but the parties and powers that be have convinced people there are, and they've convinced them their favored candidates are right in their attacks against their opponents. I actually have a very good and interesting video of what's done to win a presidential election, and it's completely non-partisan and strangely enough really has nothing to do with politics at all, if you're interested. However, that aside, the point I'm trying to make is as bad as these elections are, people still fall for the crap. Go figure. Stuff like that is where I lose my faith in humanity, not so much the underhanded political tactics, but the people's falling for them.

    I don't think there's any real central organization for the Tea Party, and some of the beliefs seem to vary to some degree, but I like to think this gives a proper sum of their positions:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/BillWhittl ... id=&view=0

    I personally don't agree on their foreign policy and military positions according to this one though. I think both major party members, politicians and citizens alike, for the most part are inconsistent in their views (can't have constitutional spending without a constitutional foreign policy and military use), but to get to your question that hopefully is an accurate source for what the Tea Party stands for as opposed to the usual fodder for Bill Maher's comedy. Either way, I wouldn't get too hung up on it. It's just one group of many with their own set of beliefs. You just need to open your mind and listen to whom and what makes sense, and I've always aligned myself more with what certain individuals rather than entire groups. Personally I've found it makes sense to listen to what's best not for society as a whole, but for the individual, which was what the country was founded on and in fact actually benefits society in the long run. Hope you understand what I'm saying.
  • Post Reply 198 posts

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 32 guests

    Jump to