William G. Manning, et al., "The Taxes of Sin: Do Smokers and Drinkers Pay Their Way?" Journal of the American Medical Association, March 17, 1989, p. 1604
I should have left that out. I think it can be easily demonstrated to be false based on a few incontrovertable assumptions about the nature of Rights, but it's not an outright lie.
Sorry. Better editing next time. (I didn't post it at +5. Who knew if anyone would even see it?)
This isn't even close to a scientific argument or anything like that. You just linked the founder of the web site to tobacco companies. Guilt by association, I guess.
What's the point though? Is it "don't listen to the devil words; he's a witch"? Is it "don't read and decide for yourself"?
This is supposed to be a science topic. Shouldn't reason prevail?
It's the new junk-science McCarthyism at work. If you don't like someone's position on a scientific topic, just link that person to a tobacco company. Presto! They're discredited by association. No need to put any further thought into it.
Are you contending that if Philip Morris agrees with something, then it's automatically untrue? Perhaps if Philip Morris funded a study confirming gravity's effects, you'd conclude you could walk on the ceiling?
You seem to have established junkscience.com as politically incorrect. You've said little about whether they're factually incorrect.
Cigarette smokers end up saving the public money. They die younger, saving years of health-care and social security payments. They also pay huge amounts in cigarette taxes. Cigarette smoking is a net postive contributor to public coffers.
This isn't an endorsement of smoking or anything else except the facts.
If we could just all be reasonable and try to find out the real facts, then discussions like this could be more about solutions and less about how "George Bush sucks" and "John Ashcroft is the devil". Maybe someday...
FWIW: Religous people of all faiths, in general, tend to be nice people.
Some religious leaders want to make your choices for you. Some scientific leaders want to make your choices for you. It doesn't matter who's right about why or what the underlying motives are. What matters is that your choices are yours, and my choices are mine, and trying to take them away is wrong.
Women are paid $.7# cents for every dollar a man is paid.
No one knew cigarettes were dangerous before 19##.
Cigarette smoking costs the public $## billion for health care.
Animals have Rights.
There are ### species going extinct each day/month/year.
It's ---------'s fault children are fat, not their parents' fault.
Nuclear power is more dangereous than ------ power.
-------- is dangerous in small doses.
Vaccines cause autism.
Organic food is safer.
GM "frankenfoods" will kill us all in ## years.
Air polution is getting worse.
If you want a hundred examples of outright leftist falsehood, you only need to look to junkscience.com. It's updated daily. They're not always right, but they seem to have brought back the concept of healthy skepticism.
This is not a defense of untruth by the right either. I've noticed just the opposite of your contention. Untruths are more a historical phenomenon for the right and more a contemporary phenomenon for the left.
The thing is, political falsehood is usually used to oppress people, not to free them. In general, modern conservatives in the US want more freedom, and modern liberals want more control over people. This represents a shift from the '60s, and it goes hand-in-hand with the shift in political untruth-telling.
But you were arguing _against_ equal treatment for people with money a couple of posts ago.
I still think you miss the point of the Declaration of Independence preamble based on your 2 different citations of it as an example of something it doesn't intend to say.
Not too bad, but you missed the point of the Declaration of Independence preamble (equal means equal in status -- no nobility or royalty)
And you missed the similarity between "thin indications supporting a utopian vision" and "well-established social principles" (they are inverse descriptions of the same thing -- the first is from a non-believer in the vision, the second is from a true believer).
But this conversation isn't going anywhere and it's completely academic.
I just wish you guys would just let us keep what we earn rather than taking it for your plans. Even if your plans would work and a bunch of would-be criminals could become good guys through the magic of social spending, it's not your money. And when it is your money, you choose to spend lots of it on yourselves and your families rather than on your big plan. I guess we can both continue to wish.
Even assuming you're correct and it doesn't reduce crime "rates", it does prevent actual individual crimes by keeping habitual criminals away from the rest of us.
See how I didn't "check the stats"? See how you don't need so-called "stats" when you point out obvious truths about reality rather than thin indications supportive of a utopian "vision"?
Perhaps if the US provided adequate education, social services and health care to its poor rather than incarcerating them, you guys wouldn't need to spend all that money.
Perhaps not.
How about if you provide adequate education, social services and health care to our so-called poor? Then we'll see if it helps any. If you're right and crime goes away, we'll pay you back with the savings. Do we have a deal? Why not?
So if you "don't trust the government to do the right thing", you must be against most other laws too. The government that can't be trusted with one decision can't be trusted with education, health care, or social services either.
You must also be for lower taxes, because it makes little sense to leave cash in the hands of an organization you don't trust.
Correct? (If so, that's admirable. If not, that's selective reasoning, and your positions are very self-serving.)
Would you deprive hundreds of thousands of people of years of safe entertainment, and thousands of people of employment, and millions of investors of a good return (for providing the entertainment and the jobs) just on the off-chance that this incident could have been prevented?
I wouldn't.
If too many people make _your_ choice, life's going to be a lot less worth living for the rest of us who don't have Shawn Wooley's problems.
I wonder if you even know who at Worldcom is to blame, and exactly what that person did wrong. How about thinking a little more and pointing fingers a little less?
My suggestion:
Someone from Worldcom (and probably someone from Arthur Andersen) should stand trial under the current securities fraud laws, and if found guilty, be sentenced.
Not very appealing, is it? When it comes to vengenance, envy, hate, and petty political gain, I guess The Law just isn't up to the task.
The constant "it's really complicated" or "you have to eat healthy foods, even if you don't like them" attitude it just as likely to knock someone off their diet as hunger is.
Hunger is actually easy to deal with. Defeatism, and dissatisfaction with my food are harder. I chose to go with "unhealthy" food in smaller quantities. It's worked really well (lost 105 lbs.), and I get to eat meat and cookies.
Slashdot Mirror
William G. Manning, et al., "The Taxes of Sin: Do Smokers and Drinkers Pay Their Way?" Journal of the American Medical Association, March 17, 1989, p. 1604
I should have left that out. I think it can be easily demonstrated to be false based on a few incontrovertable assumptions about the nature of Rights, but it's not an outright lie.
Sorry. Better editing next time. (I didn't post it at +5. Who knew if anyone would even see it?)
This isn't even close to a scientific argument or anything like that. You just linked the founder of the web site to tobacco companies. Guilt by association, I guess.
What's the point though? Is it "don't listen to the devil words; he's a witch"? Is it "don't read and decide for yourself"?
This is supposed to be a science topic. Shouldn't reason prevail?
It's the new junk-science McCarthyism at work. If you don't like someone's position on a scientific topic, just link that person to a tobacco company. Presto! They're discredited by association. No need to put any further thought into it.
I said they weren't right all the time.
Are you contending that if Philip Morris agrees with something, then it's automatically untrue? Perhaps if Philip Morris funded a study confirming gravity's effects, you'd conclude you could walk on the ceiling?
You seem to have established junkscience.com as politically incorrect. You've said little about whether they're factually incorrect.
BTW:
Why not check your references next time.
A your link is from a web site by a long-time anti cell phone activist who insists that cell phones cause illness.
At least I think so -- this is my first time playing "check your references" :)
Cigarette smokers end up saving the public money. They die younger, saving years of health-care and social security payments. They also pay huge amounts in cigarette taxes. Cigarette smoking is a net postive contributor to public coffers.
This isn't an endorsement of smoking or anything else except the facts.
If we could just all be reasonable and try to find out the real facts, then discussions like this could be more about solutions and less about how "George Bush sucks" and "John Ashcroft is the devil". Maybe someday...
Ok, agreed.
FWIW: Religous people of all faiths, in general, tend to be nice people.
Some religious leaders want to make your choices for you. Some scientific leaders want to make your choices for you. It doesn't matter who's right about why or what the underlying motives are. What matters is that your choices are yours, and my choices are mine, and trying to take them away is wrong.
If you want a hundred examples of outright leftist falsehood, you only need to look to junkscience.com. It's updated daily. They're not always right, but they seem to have brought back the concept of healthy skepticism.
This is not a defense of untruth by the right either. I've noticed just the opposite of your contention. Untruths are more a historical phenomenon for the right and more a contemporary phenomenon for the left.
The thing is, political falsehood is usually used to oppress people, not to free them. In general, modern conservatives in the US want more freedom, and modern liberals want more control over people. This represents a shift from the '60s, and it goes hand-in-hand with the shift in political untruth-telling.
Actually, no. The US seems to be in compliance with the treaty in question. Look it up.
Nice try though.
this is really interesting. is it true?
Has sweeps week come to the Internet?
But you were arguing _against_ equal treatment for people with money a couple of posts ago.
I still think you miss the point of the Declaration of Independence preamble based on your 2 different citations of it as an example of something it doesn't intend to say.
That's ok though.
Geez. It's "created equal" not "treated equal".
Not too bad, but you missed the point of the Declaration of Independence preamble (equal means equal in status -- no nobility or royalty)
And you missed the similarity between "thin indications supporting a utopian vision" and "well-established social principles" (they are inverse descriptions of the same thing -- the first is from a non-believer in the vision, the second is from a true believer).
But this conversation isn't going anywhere and it's completely academic.
I just wish you guys would just let us keep what we earn rather than taking it for your plans. Even if your plans would work and a bunch of would-be criminals could become good guys through the magic of social spending, it's not your money. And when it is your money, you choose to spend lots of it on yourselves and your families rather than on your big plan. I guess we can both continue to wish.
Even assuming you're correct and it doesn't reduce crime "rates", it does prevent actual individual crimes by keeping habitual criminals away from the rest of us.
See how I didn't "check the stats"? See how you don't need so-called "stats" when you point out obvious truths about reality rather than thin indications supportive of a utopian "vision"?
No, you probably don't see.
Perhaps not.
How about if you provide adequate education, social services and health care to our so-called poor? Then we'll see if it helps any. If you're right and crime goes away, we'll pay you back with the savings. Do we have a deal? Why not?
It's supposed to be News for Nerds, not News for Herds.
So if you "don't trust the government to do the right thing", you must be against most other laws too. The government that can't be trusted with one decision can't be trusted with education, health care, or social services either.
You must also be for lower taxes, because it makes little sense to leave cash in the hands of an organization you don't trust.
Correct? (If so, that's admirable. If not, that's selective reasoning, and your positions are very self-serving.)
Is there anything in there about producing anything or providing any actual useful work in exchange for all of these goodies?
Would you deprive hundreds of thousands of people of years of safe entertainment, and thousands of people of employment, and millions of investors of a good return (for providing the entertainment and the jobs) just on the off-chance that this incident could have been prevented?
I wouldn't.
If too many people make _your_ choice, life's going to be a lot less worth living for the rest of us who don't have Shawn Wooley's problems.
I wonder if you even know who at Worldcom is to blame, and exactly what that person did wrong. How about thinking a little more and pointing fingers a little less?
My suggestion:
Someone from Worldcom (and probably someone from Arthur Andersen) should stand trial under the current securities fraud laws, and if found guilty, be sentenced.
Not very appealing, is it? When it comes to vengenance, envy, hate, and petty political gain, I guess The Law just isn't up to the task.
1900 = 1900. It's inescapable.
The constant "it's really complicated" or "you have to eat healthy foods, even if you don't like them" attitude it just as likely to knock someone off their diet as hunger is.
Hunger is actually easy to deal with. Defeatism, and dissatisfaction with my food are harder. I chose to go with "unhealthy" food in smaller quantities. It's worked really well (lost 105 lbs.), and I get to eat meat and cookies.
So you saved a dollar and didn't get as fat. It's win-win.
>Expensive bread is better.
Get a bread machine. Nothing's better than fresh bread that just got done baking a few minutes ago. You'll be amazed how good it is.
Also, you have to plan at least 3 hours ahead if you want it, so it doesn't lead to snacking.
Only buy 2. Eat all of them.