Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Buzzsaw wrote: If I propose that MSM is morally objectionable because it is contrary to the dictates of the Abrahamic faiths, your reply is... that it is "natural"?
This does not seem a satisfying answer.
No less satisfying than your initial proposition. Any proposition that is made without support of fact or evidence can equally be discarded without fact or evidence.
And no, your particular brand of mythology is not evidence.
Edit: I suggest this line of conversation is drifting too far from the topic of US politics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 04:59:52
As for "What is so wrong about homosexuality", as a moral matter I have made clear I am proceeding (in this dialogue) from the position of the Halacha (Jewish Law). There is no debate on the position the Abrahamic faiths take on the matter of MSM (it's quite negative).
Before I answer... tell me, since you derive your moral views from an old book, if you had a daughter that was raped, would you require her to then be married to her rapist? Because from what you're saying, that's the moral thing to do.
On this specific matter I would be compelled to point out you are misinterpreting the laws that apply to seduction with the laws that apply to rape. However, it may be more to the point that my "old book" quite clearly establishes that the penalty for rape is death.
Let me put your mind at ease and say that I do, in fact, consider rape the moral equivalent of murder.
All that said, while this may constitute a reason why you may not follow my book, it does not establish a basis of support for any other position. After all, suppose I simply answered "Yes" or "No". Does either answer change the basis of your own moral structure? If so, how so?
Buzzsaw wrote: If I propose that MSM is morally objectionable because it is contrary to the dictates of the Abrahamic faiths, your reply is... that it is "natural"?
This does not seem a satisfying answer.
No less satisfying than your initial proposition. Any proposition that is made without support of fact or evidence can equally be discarded without fact or evidence.
And no, your particular brand of mythology is not evidence.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, discarding my rationale does not establish a basis for your own. Moreover, why would I care that you don't respect my mythology? I have, after all, pointed out that I believe in magic. I scarcely expect you to share my belief, I am not a Christian that I am encumbered to preach to you. You are entitled to believe as you like, but the purpose of my exercise is determining the foundations of your beliefs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 05:02:00
Buzzsaw wrote: On the contrary, remember I am arguing from the position of Abrahamic law, which places a specific obligation on males to marry (at least one) women and reproduce.
And, since this is the context of the US politics thread, the US is a secular nation and the laws of your religion are not relevant. Other people who do not follow your religion are not obligated to follow those laws, and that includes your children (who are not yet old enough to make their own choice in religion).
What if they simply have a reasonable expectation that their children will be happier as heterosexuals?
Then they have a reasonable expectation. I have a reasonable expectation that any children I have will be happier as Seahawks fans than as Browns fans, but I don't have the right to force them to get a tattoo of the team's logo.
Again, "clear harm"? Suppose the parents regard homosexuality as a "clear harm"? There are no shortage of people that would agree to such an assessment.
Of course there are lots of people who believe that, but they're wrong. They can't point to any evidence outside of their religious texts, and those religious texts are not relevant in the context of secular law.
You claim "the transgender child is asking for the treatment", but what defense is this?
How is it not a defense? Do you honestly not see the difference between a child saying "I'm a girl/boy, please give me the right body" and a parent forcing a gay child to take a "cure" for being gay even though the child has no desire to change who they are?
Surely such suspicion must also attach to the 'requests' of a minor child that is, definitionally, incapable of understanding what they are asking for.
Of course that suspicion exists, which is why the child can only receive hormone blockers to delay physical changes, not replacement hormones to begin a different set of physical changes. The whole point of this process is that they aren't able to make a decision with irreversible consequences, so we give them an option to wait and make a choice once they're old enough.
Would a similar battery of "working with a therapist" ameliorate any ethical concerns regarding this hypothetical gay conversion therapy?
Partly, though a more accurate analogy would be working with a therapist to give treatment that delays development of gay or straight attraction and then allowing the child to make a choice between stopping treatment and continuing on as a gay person or moving to the next step of the process to make themselves straight. And of course this would only be able to be done at all if the child actually wants it, there can't be any coercion from the parents to take the delaying option.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
As for "What is so wrong about homosexuality", as a moral matter I have made clear I am proceeding (in this dialogue) from the position of the Halacha (Jewish Law). There is no debate on the position the Abrahamic faiths take on the matter of MSM (it's quite negative).
Before I answer... tell me, since you derive your moral views from an old book, if you had a daughter that was raped, would you require her to then be married to her rapist? Because from what you're saying, that's the moral thing to do.
On this specific matter I would be compelled to point out you are misinterpreting the laws that apply to seduction with the laws that apply to rape. However, it may be more to the point that my "old book" quite clearly establishes that the penalty for rape is death.
Let me put your mind at ease and say that I do, in fact, consider rape the moral equivalent of murder.
All that said, while this may constitute a reason why you may not follow my book, it does not establish a basis of support for any other position. After all, suppose I simply answered "Yes" or "No". Does either answer change the basis of your own moral structure? If so, how so?
I raise that point because the vast majority of translations available for Deuteronomy point out that a male rapist is supposed to marry the person he raped. I'm sure they'd opt for that over death...
You've been very honest about your religious views. I obviously do not share them. I'm an atheist, and am so in some small part due to the particular religious sect that I grew up in's particular brand of crazy didn't sit right with me. The more I read of the entire bible, the more made up fairy tale it looks to me.
Now, that isn't a reason to condone homosexuality... So here's why I do support it: as I mentioned earlier, mammals in particular have evolved with a homosexual trait in them. Of the reading I've done on the subject (I'm into history, so science isn't entirely my thing) what I've seen is those biological science doctors suggesting, and finding that when/where they see homosexual partnerships in the animal kingdom, is usually in a situation where a mate has died, and the gay partner steps in as a surrogate... this most often also acts as a balance to the herd/group (ie, the sexes have become imbalanced, and the herd is worse off). This is a far cry from cannibalism, as you pointed out earlier.
Homosexuality literally harms no one, except those who think it's wrong on religious grounds. As religions are man-made institutions and power structures at that, I'm more likely to side against the religion. But I'd also view this on Millsian grounds: The recent trend among homosexual people in the US is the formation of the nuclear unit... Basically, they are trying to adopt kids in decent numbers. Basically, they are acting as the surrogates I mentioned above in the animal kingdom. The Millsian perspective here is that I think all of us agree that children grow up better in a stable environment, and these partners are proving, quite often times to be even more stable than their straight peers.
Considering this is a US politics thread, I think it might be safe to assume that a good chunk of the people posting here, at least those of us who post regularly, are working from the foundations of our government, and the various texts that codify it, as the foundations of our beliefs in this context. If we were posting in different forums, like the 40k rules, our beliefs would be founded upon GW's rule books. Speaking of which, I will echo a previous poster and say, let's get back to discussing politics.
I'm starting to get my own thoughts on this election together, and I guess the way I'm starting to understand it comes down to a simple thing - Donald Trump promised a whole lot of stuff, and Hillary Clinton didn't. He promised big changes to immigration, to trade, to bring back manufacturing jobs, to law and order. It didn't really matter that almost all of it was quite silly, he was at least saying he'd do something. To a lot of the Republican base who are marginally interested in politics, that probably sounded like something worth getting out and voting for, even if they were informed enough to know how silly his ideas were it at least sounded like he was going to do something. For a lot of the Democratic base that are marginally interested in politics, Clinton talking about going and looking at her website to see some dense policy on continuing Obama's reforms... meh.
This also ties back to past elections. Obama also beat Clinton in 2008, and then went on to beat McCain. Obama won both campaigns by promising a hell of a lot more than they did, and then have people buy in to his promises on some level. It honestly took me until about two years to realise that lots of left wing voters really expected Obama to deliver every bit of his hope and change, and were genuinely disappointed when he didn't deliver on his grand speeches. GW Bush also promised a whole new world, Al Gore promised a continuation of the moderate progress of the Clinton administration, the result was effectively a tie, but when you consider Gore was running on the back of a strong economy and wasn't an idiot, it's clear the headwind of establishment he was up against. Clinton beat GHW Bush by promising a new kind of liberalism, GHW Bush promised a continuation of the old. In the election before that GHW Bush won despite continuing from Reagan, but he was trailing until late in the campaign when Dukakis gifted him some great political ammo. And before that Reagan over Carter was probably the clearest example.
The thing is, though, you can't just promise anything. You have to be in a position where your promises, no matter how impractical they are, can be believed on some level. That's very difficult to do when you're coming from the party that's had the presidency for the last 8 years. It is much easier to do when your party doesn't hold the presidency. That's why the winners above (GHW Bush excluded) were from the party that hadn't previously held the presidency.
I know much of this ultimately boils down to 'it's hard to keep the presidency for a third term'... and well, duh. I get that. But the part I'm really thinking about is why it is hard. Because by and large president's deliver their promises. I think it's about 75% of promises are delivered on, if memory serves me correctly. So why should people get disillusioned with presidents who deliver exactly what got voters excited in the first place?
Probably because, at the end of the day, politics just doesn't impact daily life that much for most people. There will always be people directly impacted by specific policies, someone who has a job because a new program, or health coverage where they didn't before, but that's individuals in a nation of millions. For the most part day by day people's lives continue the same no matter who runs the government. Even if a president is doing exactly what he said, what got you excited in the first place, sooner or later you're not going to notice, you will probably take the things he is doing that you like for granted. And you will definitely notice the things that still aren't right, because they haven't been addressed or the policy has failed. You may still approve of the president, but enthusiasm for the cause will wane. In a nation where the popular vote will be split 56.6 million vs 56.8 million, a little disinterest from your base can be terminal.
I think probably what needs to be scaled back is people's expectations for when their side wins the presidency. If you live a declining manufacturing area, don't assume your jobs are coming back. Even if Trump was genuine about that, it is beyond the capability of any president to return jobs - even if manufacturing returns it will be automated. And in the last election, Obama was never going to end racial discrimination, he wasn't ever going to stop US military actions overseas - those things exist for institutional and practical reasons that one man cannot resolve in 4 or 8 years. GW Bush was never going to cut taxes, maintain spending and keep the budget.
I guess my final though bubble is wondering if all this comes down to misunderstanding exactly how much a politician can do to change your life. And maybe also some level of ignorance about how much they are actually are doing to help you. As long as we overrate the former and underrate the latter, there will be a strong yo-yo effect in politics.
Maybe even a strong enough yo-yo that people will buy in to the insane nonsense sold by Donald Trump.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Then they have a reasonable expectation. I have a reasonable expectation that any children I have will be happier as Seahawks fans than as Browns fans, but I don't have the right to force them to get a tattoo of the team's logo.
I hate to interrupt you guys, but I'm curious about this part.
When you say you don't have the right, is that because there's a law against it, or you think it's wrong. Because parents do have a great deal of lea way when it comes to their kids. circumcisions, piercing a girls ear the first day out of the hospital, assigning a gender for hermaphrodites, even waiving the age restriction for their children to marry with some states having no minimum age.
given all of that, I have to wonder if you can tattoo your kids with team logos for the lulls, I know you can name your kid seahawk.
given what we can do to our kids their will and happiness be damned, conversion therapy does seem to fall into parental rights. But as it's done by churches and is equivalent to torture, I agree it should not be done.
Buzzsaw wrote: Hmm, while an attractive idea that notion would make the morality of any actions taken for the benefit of the health of a child subject to retrospective revision. That would seem untenable as a moral principle, not least because the moral character of your own actions would depend entirely on externalities.
It's hardly a problematic idea when you understand that most actions taken for the benefit of a child have rather predictable outcomes. A reasonable adult is going to look back and say "I'm really glad you made me take those antibiotics so I didn't die when I was 5", and there is very little chance of them believing otherwise. But with things like "curing" homosexuality there is no such guarantee. The person as an adult could be thankful, or they could hate the abuse that was inflicted on them. So when the outcome is legitimately in doubt you err on the side of doing nothing and letting the person make their own choice.
This, again, seems without basis. It is objectively true that the moral inclinations and religious beliefs of a child are very strongly influenced by the corresponding beliefs of the parents. Assuming such is true there is a strong logical basis that parents that would consider such treatments for their children would correctly surmise that their children would appreciate said therapy.
Buzzsaw wrote: You'll have to forgive me, but I see very little evidence that male homosexual promiscuity is in any significant way tied to social stigma. If that were the case, after all, one would see a marked decrease in multi-partner relationships among MSM in very LGBT friendly places. San Francisco, Tel Aviv, perhaps no places in human history have been as accepting of homosexual behavior as these. To the best of my knowledge these places not only do not see a reduction in MSM promiscuity, but an increase.
I don't have a source for this right now (it's something I've heard over and over again in LGBT-related communities), but remember that even when a local area is better than average the culture of the country as a whole still matters. A gay man moving to San Francisco after being disowned by his parents and having a lifetime of being told "no family for you, burn in hell" is still going to carry the impact of that poor treatment. For a counter-example look at how much effort was put into fighting for gay marriage. That only makes sense if gay people want to get married, if they're content to have lots of anonymous sex without relationships then there would be no need to keep fighting once the laws making homosexual acts illegal were struck down. There's a reason why the day gay people were granted the ability to have their long-term commitments acknowledged by society was considered such a huge thing to celebrate.
The problem with this series of arguments is that, were the "the culture of the country as a whole still matters" idea correct it would have bizarre implications. Consider, for example, Tel Aviv. The entire nation of Israel is only about 8 million people. One might reasonably claim that this small number of people (smaller then a number of US cities) might constitute a single culture. But then how could this explanation possibly work for San Francisco? The state of California alone has almost 5 times the total population of Israel (~40 million). This explanation seems rather more like a way of explaining why the various efforts to "tame" gay men, so to speak, have yielded little results.
Well.......um............The school next to me had a walkout to protest Trump, then made a human chain to block drivers from going into the local shopping center. Apparently because they think only the rich can afford coffee and trump is gonna cater to the rich or something.
Long story short, a few Resturants got trashed. Including the place that was gonna hire me until this happened. And my Favorite Mexican resturant.
Buzzsaw wrote: On the contrary, remember I am arguing from the position of Abrahamic law, which places a specific obligation on males to marry (at least one) women and reproduce.
And, since this is the context of the US politics thread, the US is a secular nation and the laws of your religion are not relevant. Other people who do not follow your religion are not obligated to follow those laws, and that includes your children (who are not yet old enough to make their own choice in religion).
What if they simply have a reasonable expectation that their children will be happier as heterosexuals?
Then they have a reasonable expectation. I have a reasonable expectation that any children I have will be happier as Seahawks fans than as Browns fans, but I don't have the right to force them to get a tattoo of the team's logo.
Again, "clear harm"? Suppose the parents regard homosexuality as a "clear harm"? There are no shortage of people that would agree to such an assessment.
Of course there are lots of people who believe that, but they're wrong. They can't point to any evidence outside of their religious texts, and those religious texts are not relevant in the context of secular law.
You claim "the transgender child is asking for the treatment", but what defense is this?
How is it not a defense? Do you honestly not see the difference between a child saying "I'm a girl/boy, please give me the right body" and a parent forcing a gay child to take a "cure" for being gay even though the child has no desire to change who they are?
Surely such suspicion must also attach to the 'requests' of a minor child that is, definitionally, incapable of understanding what they are asking for.
Of course that suspicion exists, which is why the child can only receive hormone blockers to delay physical changes, not replacement hormones to begin a different set of physical changes. The whole point of this process is that they aren't able to make a decision with irreversible consequences, so we give them an option to wait and make a choice once they're old enough.
Would a similar battery of "working with a therapist" ameliorate any ethical concerns regarding this hypothetical gay conversion therapy?
Partly, though a more accurate analogy would be working with a therapist to give treatment that delays development of gay or straight attraction and then allowing the child to make a choice between stopping treatment and continuing on as a gay person or moving to the next step of the process to make themselves straight. And of course this would only be able to be done at all if the child actually wants it, there can't be any coercion from the parents to take the delaying option.
You must forgive me, but I fear that you are rather missing the point of asking these questions, especially with this statement;
Of course there are lots of people who believe that, but they're wrong. They can't point to any evidence outside of their religious texts, and those religious texts are not relevant in the context of secular law.
I've literally referenced epidemiological statistics from the CDC. It is flat out untrue and unscientific to claim that there is no rational basis in distinguishing between gay and straight, or that only irrationality can explain a preference of one or the other among your offspring.
This will probably be my last post on the subject; while it has wandered very far afield the more important point is I have been attempting to dig down into the basis of a series of beliefs. I think that I have now gained some insight and... well, my overall impression is that many of these positions are simply received wisdom, the philosophical underpinnings simply absent. Altogether too many times the answer to "what is the difference?" has been "Don't you see the difference?!"
I do, most assuredly, appreciate everyone that has taken the time to reply. I really mean that; it's been very valuable. And please don't imagine that any of this has been intended as some exercise in proselytizing: one of the (many) great things about the Jewish faith is a serene indifference towards the beliefs of others.
So again, let me thank you all for your comments (on the off chance anyone wanted to continue the conversation you can PM me). Otherwise, let's return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Probably because, at the end of the day, politics just doesn't impact daily life that much for most people. There will always be people directly impacted by specific policies, someone who has a job because a new program, or health coverage where they didn't before, but that's individuals in a nation of millions. For the most part day by day people's lives continue the same no matter who runs the government. Even if a president is doing exactly what he said, what got you excited in the first place, sooner or later you're not going to notice, you will probably take the things he is doing that you like for granted. And you will definitely notice the things that still aren't right, because they haven't been addressed or the policy has failed. You may still approve of the president, but enthusiasm for the cause will wane. In a nation where the popular vote will be split 56.6 million vs 56.8 million, a little disinterest from your base can be terminal.
I think there's something to be said for certain held ideologies... I know just a few pages back, Trump is apparently promising to get rid of "regulations"... I know for my right leaning friends, "regulations" is sort of a buzzword. They have this fething mentally weird belief that that is government intrusion, that Big Brother is over-reaching, etc. etc. etc. I think you are correct that very few policies, very few laws or regulations actually act the way some people think they do.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well.......um............The school next to me had a walkout to protest Trump, then made a human chain to block drivers from going into the local shopping center. Apparently because they think only the rich can afford coffee and trump is gonna cater to the rich or something.
Long story short, a few Resturants got trashed. Including the place that was gonna hire me until this happened. And my Favorite Mexican resturant.
Dayum. I've been watching giant walking protests in Philly: what city are you in? From the live shots I've seen it looks like thousands are on the streets...
First time I voted and did not vote Democrat. I voted 3rd party.
After watching these protests, the things people are saying, "People have to die", the complete hypocrisy I see unfolding before me as well as all the assaults I have seen committed against Trump voters I don't think I'll vote Democrat ever again. Democrats have become everything they hated in the Republicans in the early 2000s.
Never thought I would see the day that Democrats/liberals acted like jackbooted thugs.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well.......um............The school next to me had a walkout to protest Trump, then made a human chain to block drivers from going into the local shopping center. Apparently because they think only the rich can afford coffee and trump is gonna cater to the rich or something.
Long story short, a few Resturants got trashed. Including the place that was gonna hire me until this happened. And my Favorite Mexican resturant.
Dayum. I've been watching giant walking protests in Philly: what city are you in? From the live shots I've seen it looks like thousands are on the streets...
Small Suburb of San-Fran. So much where focused on what was going in places like Oakland, no news places where around here. It happened in like 30 minutes and was done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piston Honda wrote: First time I voted and did not vote Democrat. I voted 3rd party.
After watching these protests, the things people are saying, "People have to die", the complete hypocrisy I see unfolding before me as well as all the assaults I have seen committed against Trump voters I don't think I'll vote Democrat ever again. Democrats have become everything they hated in the Republicans in the early 2000s.
Never thought I would see the day that Democrats/liberals acted like jackbooted thugs.
Anyone want to start a viable 3rd party?
Im starting one. Its Called "Harambes Vengeance"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 05:46:46
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well.......um............The school next to me had a walkout to protest Trump, then made a human chain to block drivers from going into the local shopping center. Apparently because they think only the rich can afford coffee and trump is gonna cater to the rich or something.
Long story short, a few Resturants got trashed. Including the place that was gonna hire me until this happened. And my Favorite Mexican resturant.
Dayum. I've been watching giant walking protests in Philly: what city are you in? From the live shots I've seen it looks like thousands are on the streets...
Small Suburb of San-Fran. So much where focused on what was going in places like Oakland, no news places where around here. It happened in like 30 minutes and was done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piston Honda wrote: First time I voted and did not vote Democrat. I voted 3rd party.
After watching these protests, the things people are saying, "People have to die", the complete hypocrisy I see unfolding before me as well as all the assaults I have seen committed against Trump voters I don't think I'll vote Democrat ever again. Democrats have become everything they hated in the Republicans in the early 2000s.
Never thought I would see the day that Democrats/liberals acted like jackbooted thugs.
Anyone want to start a viable 3rd party?
Im starting one. Its Called "Harambes Vengeance"
you're off to a good start then, I heard he got 15,000 votes
Piston Honda wrote: First time I voted and did not vote Democrat. I voted 3rd party.
After watching these protests, the things people are saying, "People have to die", the complete hypocrisy I see unfolding before me as well as all the assaults I have seen committed against Trump voters I don't think I'll vote Democrat ever again. Democrats have become everything they hated in the Republicans in the early 2000s.
Never thought I would see the day that Democrats/liberals acted like jackbooted thugs.
Anyone want to start a viable 3rd party?
I don't know if I'd call it the Democrats as an established party... but I do think it says something about the level of divide in this country. Over the last 2-3 years, how many publicized police killings have their been on people in the African American community? I don't want to get into the numbers, we've all been there... What I'm saying is that due to the public nature of these events, and due to that community's response to them... and due to having just elected a person who has kind of said, without verbally saying "it's open season for the cops" It is fairly understandable for me to be seeing protests and riots from the African American community....
And for those who are protesting, but aren't African American, which from what I'm seeing is a lot of white, suburban raised college kids with no real world experience... who were disillusioned when their candidate, Bernie, didnt make it... and they feel disenfranchised, and they see all the problems they will be walking right in to in adulthood, and they see Trump as being part of the problem, because Trump is part of the 1% (maybe... we dont really know how much money he has, or how much he's worth)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think there's something to be said for certain held ideologies... I know just a few pages back, Trump is apparently promising to get rid of "regulations"... I know for my right leaning friends, "regulations" is sort of a buzzword. They have this fething mentally weird belief that that is government intrusion, that Big Brother is over-reaching, etc. etc. etc. I think you are correct that very few policies, very few laws or regulations actually act the way some people think they do.
That's a really good example. Republicans win presidential elections promising cuts to lots of regulations, and more often than not they actually cut quite a bit and... it makes bugger all difference to growth, and it if makes any difference to the simple ease of living then it isn't, can't be enough to make people enthusiastically excited about it for any length of time.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Probably because, at the end of the day, politics just doesn't impact daily life that much for most people. There will always be people directly impacted by specific policies, someone who has a job because a new program, or health coverage where they didn't before, but that's individuals in a nation of millions. For the most part day by day people's lives continue the same no matter who runs the government. Even if a president is doing exactly what he said, what got you excited in the first place, sooner or later you're not going to notice, you will probably take the things he is doing that you like for granted. And you will definitely notice the things that still aren't right, because they haven't been addressed or the policy has failed. You may still approve of the president, but enthusiasm for the cause will wane. In a nation where the popular vote will be split 56.6 million vs 56.8 million, a little disinterest from your base can be terminal.
I think there's something to be said for certain held ideologies... I know just a few pages back, Trump is apparently promising to get rid of "regulations"... I know for my right leaning friends, "regulations" is sort of a buzzword. They have this fething mentally weird belief that that is government intrusion, that Big Brother is over-reaching, etc. etc. etc. I think you are correct that very few policies, very few laws or regulations actually act the way some people think they do.
You do realize that regulations are, by definition, "government intrusion", right? I mean, what else could they possibly be? They are literally limitations placed on citizens by the government. Some may be justified, but they are all intrusions.
As for overreach, an estimate from the CEI put the costs of regulations at around $1.885 trillion annually. To put that in perspective, US military spending is $598.5 billion. Social Security, Unemployment and Labor spending is $1.25 trillion. So the cost of regulation is about equal to the sum total of both our military spending and SS, et al.
Probably because, at the end of the day, politics just doesn't impact daily life that much for most people. There will always be people directly impacted by specific policies, someone who has a job because a new program, or health coverage where they didn't before, but that's individuals in a nation of millions. For the most part day by day people's lives continue the same no matter who runs the government. Even if a president is doing exactly what he said, what got you excited in the first place, sooner or later you're not going to notice, you will probably take the things he is doing that you like for granted. And you will definitely notice the things that still aren't right, because they haven't been addressed or the policy has failed. You may still approve of the president, but enthusiasm for the cause will wane. In a nation where the popular vote will be split 56.6 million vs 56.8 million, a little disinterest from your base can be terminal.
I think there's something to be said for certain held ideologies... I know just a few pages back, Trump is apparently promising to get rid of "regulations"... I know for my right leaning friends, "regulations" is sort of a buzzword. They have this fething mentally weird belief that that is government intrusion, that Big Brother is over-reaching, etc. etc. etc. I think you are correct that very few policies, very few laws or regulations actually act the way some people think they do.
You do realize that regulations are, by definition, "government intrusion", right? I mean, what else could they possibly be? They are literally limitations placed on citizens by the government. Some may be justified, but they are all intrusions.
As for overreach, an estimate from the CEI put the costs of regulations at around $1.885 trillion annually. To put that in perspective, US military spending is $598.5 billion. Social Security, Unemployment and Labor spending is $1.25 trillion. So the cost of regulation is about equal to the sum total of both our military spending and SS, et al.
When we're talking about how it affects your daily life... as Seb pointed out, rarely will you actually see/feel it.
Just as a wild example, if a new government regulation states that new road construction will create 10 foot wide driving lanes, as opposed to 9 foot lanes... the only people who really feel that impact is the road construction and connected businesses. If there's a regulation that states that a receipt printed by a cash register must now be of a standard width, you or I won't really be affected by it, unless it is our job to purchase rolls of receipt paper for a business.
I'm not arguing that they aren't intrusions... but rather that they aren't intrusions in the automatically negative sense... especially as I follow it up with over-reach.
Probably because, at the end of the day, politics just doesn't impact daily life that much for most people. There will always be people directly impacted by specific policies, someone who has a job because a new program, or health coverage where they didn't before, but that's individuals in a nation of millions. For the most part day by day people's lives continue the same no matter who runs the government. Even if a president is doing exactly what he said, what got you excited in the first place, sooner or later you're not going to notice, you will probably take the things he is doing that you like for granted. And you will definitely notice the things that still aren't right, because they haven't been addressed or the policy has failed. You may still approve of the president, but enthusiasm for the cause will wane. In a nation where the popular vote will be split 56.6 million vs 56.8 million, a little disinterest from your base can be terminal.
I think there's something to be said for certain held ideologies... I know just a few pages back, Trump is apparently promising to get rid of "regulations"... I know for my right leaning friends, "regulations" is sort of a buzzword. They have this fething mentally weird belief that that is government intrusion, that Big Brother is over-reaching, etc. etc. etc. I think you are correct that very few policies, very few laws or regulations actually act the way some people think they do.
You do realize that regulations are, by definition, "government intrusion", right? I mean, what else could they possibly be? They are literally limitations placed on citizens by the government. Some may be justified, but they are all intrusions.
As for overreach, an estimate from the CEI put the costs of regulations at around $1.885 trillion annually. To put that in perspective, US military spending is $598.5 billion. Social Security, Unemployment and Labor spending is $1.25 trillion. So the cost of regulation is about equal to the sum total of both our military spending and SS, et al.
When we're talking about how it affects your daily life... as Seb pointed out, rarely will you actually see/feel it.
Just as a wild example, if a new government regulation states that new road construction will create 10 foot wide driving lanes, as opposed to 9 foot lanes... the only people who really feel that impact is the road construction and connected businesses. If there's a regulation that states that a receipt printed by a cash register must now be of a standard width, you or I won't really be affected by it, unless it is our job to purchase rolls of receipt paper for a business.
I'm not arguing that they aren't intrusions... but rather that they aren't intrusions in the automatically negative sense... especially as I follow it up with over-reach.
Regulations are a great thing. That's why we have food that safe to eat, and know quickly enough if something is contaminated. The EPA is the agency with the cross hairs, the GOP wants it gone so their big buisness partners can pollute at will, and poison the earth because it's more cost effective than trying to limit poisonous emissions.
Most regulations do affect your daily life, and because they do you rarely notice it. Once it's gone you'll notice it and it can greatly effect you.
sirlynchmob wrote: Regulations are a great thing. That's why we have food that safe to eat, and know quickly enough if something is contaminated. The EPA is the agency with the cross hairs, the GOP wants it gone so their big buisness partners can pollute at will, and poison the earth because it's more cost effective than trying to limit poisonous emissions.
Most regulations do affect your daily life, and because they do you rarely notice it. Once it's gone you'll notice it and it can greatly effect you.
Exactly. It's rather misleading to only talk about the financial cost and ignore the benefits. Having better profit margins for a food company isn't going to be much of a consolation prize if you die because they legally sold you contaminated food.
Sure. And while I'm at it I'm going to win the lottery every week for the rest of my life. Should be a pretty modest goal compared to having a viable third party, and it will help a ton in funding my new party.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 06:15:05
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Probably because, at the end of the day, politics just doesn't impact daily life that much for most people. There will always be people directly impacted by specific policies, someone who has a job because a new program, or health coverage where they didn't before, but that's individuals in a nation of millions. For the most part day by day people's lives continue the same no matter who runs the government. Even if a president is doing exactly what he said, what got you excited in the first place, sooner or later you're not going to notice, you will probably take the things he is doing that you like for granted. And you will definitely notice the things that still aren't right, because they haven't been addressed or the policy has failed. You may still approve of the president, but enthusiasm for the cause will wane. In a nation where the popular vote will be split 56.6 million vs 56.8 million, a little disinterest from your base can be terminal.
I think there's something to be said for certain held ideologies... I know just a few pages back, Trump is apparently promising to get rid of "regulations"... I know for my right leaning friends, "regulations" is sort of a buzzword. They have this fething mentally weird belief that that is government intrusion, that Big Brother is over-reaching, etc. etc. etc. I think you are correct that very few policies, very few laws or regulations actually act the way some people think they do.
You do realize that regulations are, by definition, "government intrusion", right? I mean, what else could they possibly be? They are literally limitations placed on citizens by the government. Some may be justified, but they are all intrusions.
As for overreach, an estimate from the CEI put the costs of regulations at around $1.885 trillion annually. To put that in perspective, US military spending is $598.5 billion. Social Security, Unemployment and Labor spending is $1.25 trillion. So the cost of regulation is about equal to the sum total of both our military spending and SS, et al.
When we're talking about how it affects your daily life... as Seb pointed out, rarely will you actually see/feel it.
Just as a wild example, if a new government regulation states that new road construction will create 10 foot wide driving lanes, as opposed to 9 foot lanes... the only people who really feel that impact is the road construction and connected businesses. If there's a regulation that states that a receipt printed by a cash register must now be of a standard width, you or I won't really be affected by it, unless it is our job to purchase rolls of receipt paper for a business.
I'm not arguing that they aren't intrusions... but rather that they aren't intrusions in the automatically negative sense... especially as I follow it up with over-reach.
The problem is that 'you don't notice them' because they are baked into the prices you pay on everything. Do you notice the higher cost of gasoline? Maybe, but do you connect it to the regulations that affect these prices? Probably not.
This is rather more a case for regulations being insidious, then that "they aren't intrusions in the automatically negative sense". Hiding costs doesn't make the costs less, it just makes them less noticeable.
sirlynchmob wrote: Regulations are a great thing. That's why we have food that safe to eat, and know quickly enough if something is contaminated. The EPA is the agency with the cross hairs, the GOP wants it gone so their big buisness partners can pollute at will, and poison the earth because it's more cost effective than trying to limit poisonous emissions.
Most regulations do affect your daily life, and because they do you rarely notice it. Once it's gone you'll notice it and it can greatly effect you.
You're right... I'm speaking as someone who grew up in a rather environmentally conscious part of the country. My first 18 years of living, I lived in Oregon, I don't live much further north from that now....
My larger point here is that some of the people I know really do seem to live in a different reality, where ALL regulation, regardless of it's reason is bad. I am of the opinion, like you, that says regulations are generally good. We don't have a habit of creating regulations just because, every regulation, and regulatory body has a reason for existing. The EPA, being a prime target has a huge reason for existing. Where I grew up, along the Willamette River, people STILL do not swim in it today because of the toxic gak dumped into it from our founding in the 1850s through to the 1970s.
Piston Honda wrote: Never thought I would see the day that Democrats/liberals acted like jackbooted thugs.
I called it
I will not there is still one difference though, and it is a big one. To this point the really strident lefites are outside the halls of power in the Democratic party, the Democratic leaders like Obama and Clinton are calling for peaceful transition. Even Sanders, as an nominal leader of the left has said he will oppose Trump where he is racist, threatens the climate etc, but otherwise hasn't denied Trump's win or his status as the next president. This distinguishes them from the Republican party, who were calling Clinton illegitimate when they expected her to win, and promising the resist everything she did.
The point though, is that Republicans went from playing up to radicalised base, to seeing that radicalised base start infiltrating the party, to that radicalised base suddenly dominating the party. It was a process that took decades, but there's no reason it can't happen much faster within the Democrats, especially if they look to chase votes anywhere and everywhere to defeat Trump's GOP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buzzsaw wrote: You do realize that regulations are, by definition, "government intrusion", right? I mean, what else could they possibly be? They are literally limitations placed on citizens by the government. Some may be justified, but they are all intrusions.
Only we define intrusion so loosely that literally anything becomes an intrusion and words lose all meaning. That road you drove to work on? A government intrusion. The water that flows when you turn on the bathroom tap - that is government water intruding in to your sink.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/10 06:21:09
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Buzzsaw wrote: You do realize that regulations are, by definition, "government intrusion", right? I mean, what else could they possibly be? They are literally limitations placed on citizens by the government. Some may be justified, but they are all intrusions.
Only we define intrusion so loosely that literally anything becomes an intrusion and words lose all meaning. That road you drove to work on? A government intrusion. The water that flows when you turn on the bathroom tap - that is government water intruding in to your sink.
Having a government to begin with is the ultimate intrusion
sirlynchmob wrote: Regulations are a great thing. That's why we have food that safe to eat, and know quickly enough if something is contaminated. The EPA is the agency with the cross hairs, the GOP wants it gone so their big buisness partners can pollute at will, and poison the earth because it's more cost effective than trying to limit poisonous emissions.
Most regulations do affect your daily life, and because they do you rarely notice it. Once it's gone you'll notice it and it can greatly effect you.
Exactly. It's rather misleading to only talk about the financial cost and ignore the benefits. Having better profit margins for a food company isn't going to be much of a consolation prize if you die because they legally sold you contaminated food.
Oi vey.
So, just to be clear, it's the regulations that prevent companies from selling spoiled food. Not fear of the potential economic ruin that a lawsuit for poisoning someone would result in. Not some desire to compete with other companies. Nope, it's just the wise hand of Woodrow Wilson's Scientific Bureaucracy.
Seriously, this;
Regulations are a great thing. That's why we have food that safe to eat, and know quickly enough if something is contaminated. The EPA is the agency with the cross hairs, the GOP wants it gone so their big buisness partners can pollute at will, and poison the earth because it's more cost effective than trying to limit poisonous emissions.
A myth runs through most of America today, and it goes like this: Big business hates government and yearns for an unregulated market. But the reality is the opposite: Big government can be highly profitable for big business.
Many regulations restrict competition that would otherwise challenge existing firms. At the same time, government institutions—many created during the New Deal—funnel money to the largest corporations.
When government regulates X industry, it imposes high costs that hurt smaller firms and reduce competition. Imagine that the Department of Energy imposes a new rule that dishwashers must be more energy efficient. Coming up with designs, retrofitting factories to produce these energy-efficient models, and navigating the forms and licenses around this rule might cost a dishwasher-producing firm thousands of dollars. An industry giant, with more revenue and sizeable profit margins, can absorb this cost. A small dishwasher factory that’s only a year or two old, with little revenue and less profit, cannot. The latter would have to shut down. That means less competition for the industry giant, enabling it to grow even bigger and seize even more market share.
Big companies don't want to get rid of regulations: for almost a century they have been all but bribing lawmaker for more regulations. Why do you think so many mergers are occurring? Because big companies can weather regulatory costs better then small ones. It holds true for hospitals (the solo medical practitioner has been all but wiped out by the vast increase in rules under the ACA), insurance companies, manufacturers, etc, etc, etc.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Well.......um............The school next to me had a walkout to protest Trump, then made a human chain to block drivers from going into the local shopping center. Apparently because they think only the rich can afford coffee and trump is gonna cater to the rich or something.
Long story short, a few Resturants got trashed. Including the place that was gonna hire me until this happened. And my Favorite Mexican resturant.
Buzzsaw wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well.......um............The school next to me had a walkout to protest Trump, then made a human chain to block drivers from going into the local shopping center. Apparently because they think only the rich can afford coffee and trump is gonna cater to the rich or something.
Long story short, a few Resturants got trashed. Including the place that was gonna hire me until this happened. And my Favorite Mexican resturant.
Dayum. I've been watching giant walking protests in Philly: what city are you in? From the live shots I've seen it looks like thousands are on the streets...
Piston Honda wrote:First time I voted and did not vote Democrat. I voted 3rd party.
After watching these protests, the things people are saying, "People have to die", the complete hypocrisy I see unfolding before me as well as all the assaults I have seen committed against Trump voters I don't think I'll vote Democrat ever again. Democrats have become everything they hated in the Republicans in the early 2000s.
Never thought I would see the day that Democrats/liberals acted like jackbooted thugs.
Anyone want to start a viable 3rd party?
Y'know, all this horsegak just shows how bad liberals have gotten. It's like they are all a bunch of spoiled brat kids who throw a tantrum when they don't get their way. You didn't see disappointed Republican voters trashing cities and beating Democratic voters up in 2008 or 2012, at least not on the scale we're seeing now. Hell, even Hillary Clinton herself is at least accepting her defeat with dignity.
I was disappointed when Obama got elected (I voted for McCain and later Romney), but I certainly wasn't about to beat up people that voted for him. And I certainly wasn't going to trash some innocent person's business over it. Just suck it up and move on. It's not like he'll be the president forever. In all honesty I don't think Trump will get a second term unless he does a really amazing job (and the American people agree that he did a good job).
As for a viable 3rd party, I don't think that can happen, as a 3-party system would be very unstable, and would degenerate into two of them more or less folding into one (and then we're back where we started).
I almost wish there were no actual political parties, and people just ran for office on their own merits and beliefs rather than on party platforms. I don't think any politics anywhere in the world actually works like this, and campaign funding would probably be a nightmare, but it sounds like a good idea to me (of course I'm no expert in politics).
My armies (re-counted and updated on 11/7/24, including modeled wargear options):
Dark Angels: ~16000 Astra Militarum: ~1200 | Imperial Knights: ~2300 | Leagues of Votann: ~1300 | Tyranids: ~3400 | Stormcast Eternals: ~5000 | Kruleboyz: ~3500 | Lumineth Realm-Lords: ~700
Check out my P&M Blogs: ZergSmasher's P&M Blog | Imperial Knights blog | Board Games blog | Total models painted in 2024: 40 | Total models painted in 2025: 29 | Current main painting project: Tomb Kings
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You need your bumps felt. With a patented, Grotsnik Corp Bump Feelerer 9,000.
The Grotsnik Corp Bump Feelerer 9,000. It only looks like several bricks crudely gaffer taped to a cricket bat.
Grotsnik Corp. Sorry, No Refunds.
sirlynchmob wrote: Regulations are a great thing. That's why we have food that safe to eat, and know quickly enough if something is contaminated. The EPA is the agency with the cross hairs, the GOP wants it gone so their big buisness partners can pollute at will, and poison the earth because it's more cost effective than trying to limit poisonous emissions.
There are negative and pointless regulations. Either they were badly designed, are outdated by social and technological changes, and in a rare few cases because a special interest got a reg passed to suit it and protect its business. But beyond that there's thousands of regs that are fine, and even most of the bad ones are still better than no regulation at all.
Most regulations do affect your daily life, and because they do you rarely notice it. Once it's gone you'll notice it and it can greatly effect you.
This is pretty much what I was getting at in my essay above. I mean, people noticed the hassle of financial regs when they tied down the banking sector, they noticed how banks were limited in expanding, offering new services and creating new jobs by moving in to new and more profitable areas of financial services. But no-one noticed the greater financial security that came from quarantining home mortgages and more complex and risky financial services. So over time the regs were scaled back, accepted and approved by both Democrats and Republicans. Then in 2008 everyone really noticed that extra risk.
Honestly, I think much of the issue here comes from how badly we look at the issue of regs. The debate seems to boil down to more regs or less regs, when the answer is actually good regulations. It is possible, even likely, to write a regulation that is both burdensome and ineffectual, and it is also possible to write a reg that has minimal impact but manages to ensure safe practice. Unforunately when one side starts from a position of 'it is wrong for government to interfere' and the other side starts with 'government needs to control this'... then you never get a debate where you ask 'is there a practical and efficient way to manage this?'
Republicans, being vastly more extreme on this issue, as demonstrated in this thread Buzzsaw, are more problematic, but that isn't true of the right in general, its just true of Republicans right now. And it doesn't mean the left isn't a problem as well, looking to solve a problem without first asking if it has a workable solution.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Probably because, at the end of the day, politics just doesn't impact daily life that much for most people. There will always be people directly impacted by specific policies, someone who has a job because a new program, or health coverage where they didn't before, but that's individuals in a nation of millions. For the most part day by day people's lives continue the same no matter who runs the government. Even if a president is doing exactly what he said, what got you excited in the first place, sooner or later you're not going to notice, you will probably take the things he is doing that you like for granted. And you will definitely notice the things that still aren't right, because they haven't been addressed or the policy has failed. You may still approve of the president, but enthusiasm for the cause will wane. In a nation where the popular vote will be split 56.6 million vs 56.8 million, a little disinterest from your base can be terminal.
I think there's something to be said for certain held ideologies... I know just a few pages back, Trump is apparently promising to get rid of "regulations"... I know for my right leaning friends, "regulations" is sort of a buzzword. They have this fething mentally weird belief that that is government intrusion, that Big Brother is over-reaching, etc. etc. etc. I think you are correct that very few policies, very few laws or regulations actually act the way some people think they do.
You do realize that regulations are, by definition, "government intrusion", right? I mean, what else could they possibly be? They are literally limitations placed on citizens by the government. Some may be justified, but they are all intrusions.
As for overreach, an estimate from the CEI put the costs of regulations at around $1.885 trillion annually. To put that in perspective, US military spending is $598.5 billion. Social Security, Unemployment and Labor spending is $1.25 trillion. So the cost of regulation is about equal to the sum total of both our military spending and SS, et al.
Okay, that's the armchair assessment and definition of regulations I suppose.
They are "intrusions"? Like when you intrude on the chemical industry to stop putting lead into paint? Like when you intrude on the automobile industry to mandate seatbelts be put in all cars? Like when you intrude on industry to not dump waste and sewage into the waterways? Like when you intrude on businesses to stop putting young children to work? Like when you intrude on employers not paying the same wage for the same work? There are "intrusions" and then there are intrusions...
There's no doubt regulations can overreach, but they can just as easily be overeased and as you present an estimated $ amount on the costs of regulations, what $ amount do you put on the saved lives and clean environment many of them are designed to, and do very effectively, protect?
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
~16000 Astra Militarum: 
~1200 | Imperial Knights: 
~2300 | Leagues of Votann: 
~1300 | Tyranids: 
~3400 | Stormcast Eternals: 
~5000 | Kruleboyz: 
~3500 | Lumineth Realm-Lords: 
~700
