You don't give any citations, so I have to guess a bit at your time-line. I picked 1970. The average income for the entire decade was about $7500/year, so probably below that for the year 1970. Your deductible of $500 suddenly looks incredibly high, putting health care out of the reach of the poor. Which is exactly why the government got involved. Did it increase demand? Of course; suddenly people were receiving care that before couldn't afford it. That was the point. Obviously, if we just stopped providing health services to people that can't afford them, costs will reduce. Or if we figure out a way to take the billions in dollars insurance companies make in profit every year and put that into an actual productive part of the system, costs will reduce. When the choice is between peoples' lives and corporations' profits, one strikes me as more like an actual right that should be protected by government.
I said couples; married couples have all sorts of rights that non-married couples do not. If you are homosexual, you do not have the option to marry. Ergo, heterosexual couples have access to rights homosexual couples do not. However, your definition of homosexual (must have sex) means that two men that were a couple but not having sex would not be a homosexual couple. Would it be ok for two men in this arrangement to receive the same rights as a husband and wife?
I've read before (and found it to be true in subsequent observation) that part of the reason assholes get the girl and nice guys don't is that a lot of "nice guys" have the idea that projecting sexual desire/sexual desirability is "not nice". Probably b/c the methods most young men use to project sexual confidence and desire ARE rude, boorish and assholish. So the nice guy equates sexual aggressiveness with the undesirable methods of expressing this he sees in his peers when he is first developing, and basically emasculates himself in order to be non-threatening (an "asshole" as he sees it). They put themselves out there as a sexual non-entity, so are seen that way by women. Assholes don't care about being non-threatening; they want what they want and don't bother to hide it. So the asshole makes a woman feel desirable, the nice guy makes her feel comfortable.
"Why do so many people ask me about the nickname? Let me make this perfectly clear:.oO DYKE! Oo."
I assume that is what she is referring to, but I'm still unclear. She is in training to be a dyke? I wasn't aware that really required specialized skills...
As I suspected, it boils down to this fundamental difference in our philosophies. I think all policy implementations ought to weigh risk vs reward (however those are defined and measured for that situation). I just can't see doing obvious harm in the name of some higher ideal, without any tangible benefits to offset the tangible harm. But I can understand the impulse.
Not at all. The 1st amendment has one very tangible, very ubiquitous benefit to society: it removes an incredibly powerful tool of suppression, censorship. This goes a long way towards preventing suppression of political dissent, cultural expression, religious expression/practice, almost certainly many other areas. Taking these benefits to society and weighing them against the harm in allowing the KKK to spread its hatred allows me to make a pragmatic risk vs. reward judgment. I'm still uncertain as to specific "reward" aspects of freedom of association, in contrast to very clear "risks" associated with institutional racism.
Do you seriously believe that a business that put up a "No Negros" sign would remain in business very long?
No, but neither do I believe any business would be so blatant. I think a more subtle approach very well might be successful. Additionally, as I think more about it, I have come to the conclusion that it is disingenuous to argue that forced association is unnecessary and wrong b/c it has been so successful in the last 50 years. Modern societies' attitude towards racism is a direct result of forced integration 50(ish) years ago. Your argument strikes me as "Forced association is wrong, and furthermore isn't even necessary because it has already been done and succeeded admirably".
As to "believing in free association", it is certainly an admirable ideal. However, and perhaps this is where we will just have to disagree, I think a nebulous ideal good that has no specific benefit to society should be compromised in the face of a specific, demonstrable harm adherence to that ideal creates.
Progress by definition occurs ONLY when we adjust society to suit ourselves, adjusting to suit the existing status quo can ONLY perpetuate said status quo. That is pretty much never a good thing. Remember -call to tradition is a falacy.
Yeah, but these are teenagers we're talking about. Is there such a thing as a socially responsible, intelligent teenager? Yes. And they will find socially responsible, intelligent ways to influence society. I do not want society adjusting to the desires of the average teenager. Which wouldn't work, anyway. No matter what society is like, most teenagers will disapprove of it and their place in it.
Completely off-topic, but whoever came up with "Would you jump off a bridge just b/c someone else did it first?" as a rhetorical device indicating juvenility has obviously never jumped off a bridge. It's rather fun, and in fact fairly safe as long as someone else goes first. </pet peeve>
I think I'm just bitter b/c my mom never accepted the obvious logic of this response to her rhetorical question.
No business that did this would keep it's doors open for very long. They would be boycotted out of existence.
I know you are a big believer in the power of the free market to cure all ills (I read your posts), but I gotta ask how you can believe this? The actual evidence from history contradicts this belief. Segregated businesses thrived until the Federal government stepped in. In fact, after it was made illegal, there were a few high-profile instances of things almost coming to physical conflict over the right to discriminate.
Now, if you want to argue that there is some demonstrable good to society (that I admit I don't see) from allowing discrimination that outweighs the demonstrated harm, that's different. But given the historical record, you'll need some rather convincing arguments to successfully defend the idea that society is now at a point that it will not tolerate racism.
I had the same reaction when I first learned about the licensing requirement for barbers here in NC. It was explained to me that it is a health thing - apparently you can spread diseases if you run a dirty barbershop. Or can do serious damage to someone if you incorrectly apply some of the chemicals hairdressers use. Which is why barbers' licenses are different than hairdressers'.
"In 2004, state troopers clocked Rendell's trooper-driven car exceeding 100 mph on the turnpike.
Uhm, your quote says he wasn't the one driving. Rather, a "trooper" (presumably state trooper) was driving. How does this reflect negatively on the guy in the backseat?
Oh, I'm not suggesting that people are mean spirited, vicious creatures. Some people are mean spirited, but everyone (ok, almost everyone) can be vicious, and what I find interesting is the reason behind otherwise decent people behaving that way. I'm not familiar with the games theory experiments you mention, but I have read about behavioral experiments that indicate perception is an incredibly powerful factor in human behavior and experience. Dan Ariely has done some interesting work in this field, I think.
Personally, my opinion is that just about everybody has the potential for just about every human emotion and behavior inside of them, just to a greater or lesser degree. And humanity as a whole tends to fall on a bell curve. But it sounds like you are saying that there are experiments suggesting the bell curve is slightly skewed towards "good" away from "evil", which fits with my personal experience.
Only when everyone around them is acting unfairly, and they have no opportunity to punish unfairness, will most people act selfishly.
One important quibble: Only when they believe that everyone around them is acting unfairly...
Combine this with the power of rationalization "He's not really smarter/better than me, just luckier. Or he cheated!" and you get a recipe for some rather vicious behavior from reasonable people.
And you don't see a problem with a citizen being required to PROVE they are a citizen to any random cop (in AZ) that asks? W/o probable cause (the law specifically states "reasonable suspicion")? The difference between this and the ex-con thing is that one MIGHT happen to me once, possibly twice if I have terrible luck. I accept that "shit happens, what are you gonna do" type situations might occur that slightly inconvenience me. The other seems likely to happen very very often if I have the terrible luck of being brown in AZ. And it isn't a "shit happens" situation, it is a law specifically designed to harass foreign looking citizens; not intended, intended to identify illegal immigrants, but designed in such a manner that it guarantees the harassment of foreign looking (or sounding, or whatever criteria the cops will actually be using) citizens.
But as a citizen, I have no obligation to show proof of citizenship. I'm perfectly entitled to walk down the street without any identification on me. Even under this law, if my understanding is correct. So what happens when I am walking around, perfectly legally, without any identification and they detain me under suspicion of being an immigrant?
Yeah, except stop-and-identify doesn't mean "show papers". It means "state name", possibly address depending on which state. As stated in your own link there. To address your other points, you are wrong about the law re: driving, at least in several states. You are required to be licensed to drive, you are required to carry insurance, many states do not require you to carry this documentation with you while driving.
Huh. I just got back from Peru. Every hotel I checked into, every bus/train ticket I bought, they wanted to see my passport. And not just my passport - what I actually found odd was they all wanted to see my immigration card also. Only place I've ever been where anyone other than the customs guy as I was leaving wanted to see that.
however Christian fundamentalists are actively harmful to any meaningful discussion in the US surrounding issues such as education, contraception, church/state separation, sexuality, and probably a host of others which escape me at the moment.
They may be very "nice" people, but that doesn't absolve them of being dangerous. Killing babies and blowing up buildings are the least insidious forms of harm.
I'm sorry, are you saying that these people are harmful and dangerous because they disagree with you on various policy issues? And have the gall to actively participate in our democratic process to try and implement policies that they believe are best for our society? I suspect you would cite it as proof of their "lunacy" if they accused you of "being dangerous b/c you are actively trying to undermine society's values by, i.e. legalizing gay marriage". And yet your rhetoric sounds pretty much the same to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Is a chicken egg an egg that hatches a chicken or an egg laid by a chicken?
You don't give any citations, so I have to guess a bit at your time-line. I picked 1970. The average income for the entire decade was about $7500/year, so probably below that for the year 1970. Your deductible of $500 suddenly looks incredibly high, putting health care out of the reach of the poor. Which is exactly why the government got involved. Did it increase demand? Of course; suddenly people were receiving care that before couldn't afford it. That was the point. Obviously, if we just stopped providing health services to people that can't afford them, costs will reduce. Or if we figure out a way to take the billions in dollars insurance companies make in profit every year and put that into an actual productive part of the system, costs will reduce. When the choice is between peoples' lives and corporations' profits, one strikes me as more like an actual right that should be protected by government.
I said couples; married couples have all sorts of rights that non-married couples do not. If you are homosexual, you do not have the option to marry. Ergo, heterosexual couples have access to rights homosexual couples do not. However, your definition of homosexual (must have sex) means that two men that were a couple but not having sex would not be a homosexual couple. Would it be ok for two men in this arrangement to receive the same rights as a husband and wife?
It's also discriminatory on a sexual basis - if I have the right to marry a woman, why doesn't my female friend?
Why is this the first time I have heard that argument?! It's brilliant. When phrased that way, I don't see any easily available counter-arguments.
So as long as same sex couples have sexless marriages, then you're all cool with them having the same rights as other couples? WTH?
I've read before (and found it to be true in subsequent observation) that part of the reason assholes get the girl and nice guys don't is that a lot of "nice guys" have the idea that projecting sexual desire/sexual desirability is "not nice". Probably b/c the methods most young men use to project sexual confidence and desire ARE rude, boorish and assholish. So the nice guy equates sexual aggressiveness with the undesirable methods of expressing this he sees in his peers when he is first developing, and basically emasculates himself in order to be non-threatening (an "asshole" as he sees it). They put themselves out there as a sexual non-entity, so are seen that way by women. Assholes don't care about being non-threatening; they want what they want and don't bother to hide it. So the asshole makes a woman feel desirable, the nice guy makes her feel comfortable.
I clicked and saw this:
.oO DYKE! Oo."
"Why do so many people ask me about the nickname? Let me make this perfectly clear:
I assume that is what she is referring to, but I'm still unclear. She is in training to be a dyke? I wasn't aware that really required specialized skills...
As I suspected, it boils down to this fundamental difference in our philosophies. I think all policy implementations ought to weigh risk vs reward (however those are defined and measured for that situation). I just can't see doing obvious harm in the name of some higher ideal, without any tangible benefits to offset the tangible harm. But I can understand the impulse.
Not at all. The 1st amendment has one very tangible, very ubiquitous benefit to society: it removes an incredibly powerful tool of suppression, censorship. This goes a long way towards preventing suppression of political dissent, cultural expression, religious expression/practice, almost certainly many other areas. Taking these benefits to society and weighing them against the harm in allowing the KKK to spread its hatred allows me to make a pragmatic risk vs. reward judgment. I'm still uncertain as to specific "reward" aspects of freedom of association, in contrast to very clear "risks" associated with institutional racism.
Do you seriously believe that a business that put up a "No Negros" sign would remain in business very long?
No, but neither do I believe any business would be so blatant. I think a more subtle approach very well might be successful. Additionally, as I think more about it, I have come to the conclusion that it is disingenuous to argue that forced association is unnecessary and wrong b/c it has been so successful in the last 50 years. Modern societies' attitude towards racism is a direct result of forced integration 50(ish) years ago. Your argument strikes me as "Forced association is wrong, and furthermore isn't even necessary because it has already been done and succeeded admirably".
As to "believing in free association", it is certainly an admirable ideal. However, and perhaps this is where we will just have to disagree, I think a nebulous ideal good that has no specific benefit to society should be compromised in the face of a specific, demonstrable harm adherence to that ideal creates.
Progress by definition occurs ONLY when we adjust society to suit ourselves, adjusting to suit the existing status quo can ONLY perpetuate said status quo. That is pretty much never a good thing. Remember -call to tradition is a falacy.
Yeah, but these are teenagers we're talking about. Is there such a thing as a socially responsible, intelligent teenager? Yes. And they will find socially responsible, intelligent ways to influence society. I do not want society adjusting to the desires of the average teenager. Which wouldn't work, anyway. No matter what society is like, most teenagers will disapprove of it and their place in it.
Completely off-topic, but whoever came up with "Would you jump off a bridge just b/c someone else did it first?" as a rhetorical device indicating juvenility has obviously never jumped off a bridge. It's rather fun, and in fact fairly safe as long as someone else goes first.
</pet peeve>
I think I'm just bitter b/c my mom never accepted the obvious logic of this response to her rhetorical question.
No business that did this would keep it's doors open for very long. They would be boycotted out of existence.
I know you are a big believer in the power of the free market to cure all ills (I read your posts), but I gotta ask how you can believe this? The actual evidence from history contradicts this belief. Segregated businesses thrived until the Federal government stepped in. In fact, after it was made illegal, there were a few high-profile instances of things almost coming to physical conflict over the right to discriminate.
Now, if you want to argue that there is some demonstrable good to society (that I admit I don't see) from allowing discrimination that outweighs the demonstrated harm, that's different. But given the historical record, you'll need some rather convincing arguments to successfully defend the idea that society is now at a point that it will not tolerate racism.
I had the same reaction when I first learned about the licensing requirement for barbers here in NC. It was explained to me that it is a health thing - apparently you can spread diseases if you run a dirty barbershop. Or can do serious damage to someone if you incorrectly apply some of the chemicals hairdressers use. Which is why barbers' licenses are different than hairdressers'.
"In 2004, state troopers clocked Rendell's trooper-driven car exceeding 100 mph on the turnpike.
Uhm, your quote says he wasn't the one driving. Rather, a "trooper" (presumably state trooper) was driving. How does this reflect negatively on the guy in the backseat?
Oh, I'm not suggesting that people are mean spirited, vicious creatures. Some people are mean spirited, but everyone (ok, almost everyone) can be vicious, and what I find interesting is the reason behind otherwise decent people behaving that way. I'm not familiar with the games theory experiments you mention, but I have read about behavioral experiments that indicate perception is an incredibly powerful factor in human behavior and experience. Dan Ariely has done some interesting work in this field, I think.
Personally, my opinion is that just about everybody has the potential for just about every human emotion and behavior inside of them, just to a greater or lesser degree. And humanity as a whole tends to fall on a bell curve. But it sounds like you are saying that there are experiments suggesting the bell curve is slightly skewed towards "good" away from "evil", which fits with my personal experience.
Only when everyone around them is acting unfairly, and they have no opportunity to punish unfairness, will most people act selfishly.
One important quibble: Only when they believe that everyone around them is acting unfairly...
Combine this with the power of rationalization "He's not really smarter/better than me, just luckier. Or he cheated!" and you get a recipe for some rather vicious behavior from reasonable people.
Wait, is that an argument FOR or AGAINST religion?
Calling fascism "extremmist right", is ridiculous
That's pretty much the accepted scholarly classification of fascism, however.
And you don't see a problem with a citizen being required to PROVE they are a citizen to any random cop (in AZ) that asks? W/o probable cause (the law specifically states "reasonable suspicion")? The difference between this and the ex-con thing is that one MIGHT happen to me once, possibly twice if I have terrible luck. I accept that "shit happens, what are you gonna do" type situations might occur that slightly inconvenience me. The other seems likely to happen very very often if I have the terrible luck of being brown in AZ. And it isn't a "shit happens" situation, it is a law specifically designed to harass foreign looking citizens; not intended, intended to identify illegal immigrants, but designed in such a manner that it guarantees the harassment of foreign looking (or sounding, or whatever criteria the cops will actually be using) citizens.
But as a citizen, I have no obligation to show proof of citizenship. I'm perfectly entitled to walk down the street without any identification on me. Even under this law, if my understanding is correct. So what happens when I am walking around, perfectly legally, without any identification and they detain me under suspicion of being an immigrant?
Yeah, except stop-and-identify doesn't mean "show papers". It means "state name", possibly address depending on which state. As stated in your own link there. To address your other points, you are wrong about the law re: driving, at least in several states. You are required to be licensed to drive, you are required to carry insurance, many states do not require you to carry this documentation with you while driving.
Huh. I just got back from Peru. Every hotel I checked into, every bus/train ticket I bought, they wanted to see my passport. And not just my passport - what I actually found odd was they all wanted to see my immigration card also. Only place I've ever been where anyone other than the customs guy as I was leaving wanted to see that.
however Christian fundamentalists are actively harmful to any meaningful discussion in the US surrounding issues such as education, contraception, church/state separation, sexuality, and probably a host of others which escape me at the moment. They may be very "nice" people, but that doesn't absolve them of being dangerous. Killing babies and blowing up buildings are the least insidious forms of harm.
I'm sorry, are you saying that these people are harmful and dangerous because they disagree with you on various policy issues? And have the gall to actively participate in our democratic process to try and implement policies that they believe are best for our society? I suspect you would cite it as proof of their "lunacy" if they accused you of "being dangerous b/c you are actively trying to undermine society's values by, i.e. legalizing gay marriage". And yet your rhetoric sounds pretty much the same to me.
Religion is powerful. All power is dangerous.