Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat May 25, 2013 10:20 am

*shrugs* I gotta admit that half of my posts seem trollish and I know you already pegged me as a die-hard bleeding liberal, and I know nothing I do, post or say will change that opinion... So I'll stop giving a flying feather about it... I'll just continue posting as usual without caring.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11068
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat May 25, 2013 10:34 am

I only know of you what you post. If you admit that your posts reflect that, then how would I know otherwise? If you made balanced posts or didn't exclusively reference specifically the standard left wing perspective on every topic then my take would change, and I'm more than willing to do so. I don't care if you are a die hard liberal, it's a perfectly acceptable position, but toeing a political party line every single time does require some inconsistency like I called out above.

I think it's unfortunate that you feel intimidated to speak your mind.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat May 25, 2013 6:58 pm

To go a different direction, outside of the political parties for a bit. Here's an interesting read about the idea of banning cigarettes. The highlights are essentially that cigarettes kill far more people than pretty much anything else (guns, individual diseases, traffic accidents, etc). Also, options other than a total ban are presented. Cigarettes were not always inhale-able (I didn't know that), and levels of nicotine or the alkalinity of cigarettes can tweaked to decrease their danger and also make them less addictive.

It's a fairly interesting discussion that has a lot of complexity that I don't think will break neatly across party lines.

The article...
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... igarettes-
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Sun May 26, 2013 12:53 am

It is impossible to effectively ban behaviors you don't want. It is far better to incentivize behaviors that you do want.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sun May 26, 2013 1:53 am

But a little carrot and a little whip goes further than either alone.
*spouting platitudes day*

I think its entirely possible to ban cigarettes completely, as long as the first step is to admit it won't be done overnight, or even in a couple of years. We are talking about changing a behaviour that wa snot only seen as legal, but as cool not so long ago - the first step is of course to limit where you can smoke, and do so in a reasonable manner.
Like "You are not allowed to smoke in a common workplace, due to passive inhalation", and "you are not allowed to smoke 'near' children when working with them profesionally" (passive inhalation, as well as role model), and then tighten the restrictions over time, in a tempo that keeps the ball rolling, but isnt' so fast as to have the "oldtimers" who can't really help that they got addicted to it when it was cool become criminals.

A reasonable timeframe, in my head, is ~50 years from first restriction to final ban, provided the ball is kept rolling.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun May 26, 2013 9:01 am

They will never ban them... the taxes on cigarettes are just too tempting to pass on them.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11068
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun May 26, 2013 10:05 am

fuzzygeek wrote:It is impossible to effectively ban behaviors you don't want. It is far better to incentivize behaviors that you do want.

Well I don't think you'd ever reach zero use, but with the social stigma associated with cigarettes these days, I think a ban would be pretty effective. There's not much of a redeeming quality to cigarettes that would make them worth any sort of risk, and all the domestic farms would be growing different crops making it that much more of a hassel and expense.

You could phase it in too, starting by requiring lower nicotine levels in existing cigarettes to make them less addictive, keep amping up costs and taxes (which also has been pretty effective), keep putting tighter restrictions on where/when you can smoke etc making it more and more a pain in the ass to keep eroding the public interest.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Mon May 27, 2013 6:25 am

Klaudandus wrote:They will never ban them... the taxes on cigarettes are just too tempting to pass on them.

Well, socialized healthcare takes care of that - the taxes made on tobacco producs do not surpass the expenses of treating tobacco caused (related is probably a better word) illnesses.

Not to mention the cost to businesses, with the increased sickdays a smoker will have over a nonsmoker (all other factors being equal), as well as a shorter lifespan (meaning childhood being a nonprovider is a larger part) and a worse health in the end (meaning there isn't actually any 'savings' from the generally decreased lifespan).
Add to that the added expense and recovery time from other health related needs, due to having apoorer health.

Tobacco, as it is available today* provides numerous expenses to society, both state and private sector, and no significant benefit to society (taxes, as said, do not account for costs, there is a net deficit)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Mon May 27, 2013 1:42 pm

Nooska wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:They will never ban them... the taxes on cigarettes are just too tempting to pass on them.

Well, socialized healthcare takes care of that - the taxes made on tobacco producs do not surpass the expenses of treating tobacco caused (related is probably a better word) illnesses.

Not to mention the cost to businesses, with the increased sickdays a smoker will have over a nonsmoker (all other factors being equal), as well as a shorter lifespan (meaning childhood being a nonprovider is a larger part) and a worse health in the end (meaning there isn't actually any 'savings' from the generally decreased lifespan).
Add to that the added expense and recovery time from other health related needs, due to having apoorer health.

Tobacco, as it is available today* provides numerous expenses to society, both state and private sector, and no significant benefit to society (taxes, as said, do not account for costs, there is a net deficit)

Are you certain of your figures? Have you taken into consideration the Social Security and medicare cost of people living full lives instead of dying early from smoking-related illnesses?
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon May 27, 2013 2:43 pm

Ohio school district's new curriculum mandates that for controversial issues, "all sides" of the issue are to be presented
http://www.boarddocs.com/oh/scsdoh/Boar ... 240%20.pdf

For purposes of this policy, controversial issues include: religion when not used in a historical or factual context, sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and any other topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion and/or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.

Image

Was tempted to bold evolution, but I find it more WTF worthy that they actually consider teaching Glenn Beck conspiracy theories.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11068
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon May 27, 2013 2:49 pm

Just an addendum to the whole IRS thing
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/po ... imits.html

The whole article was interesting, but this caught my eye:

Emerge America, which trained women to run for office, was granted 501(c)(4) recognition in 2006, but its status was revoked in 2012. Training people how to run for office is not in itself partisan activity, but the I.R.S. determined that the group trained only Democratic women and was operated to benefit one party.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11068
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon May 27, 2013 2:52 pm

Koatanga wrote:Are you certain of your figures? Have you taken into consideration the Social Security and medicare cost of people living full lives instead of dying early from smoking-related illnesses?


I personally think vaccination was the worst thing ever... we needed the bugs to kill massive swaths of us when our population gets out of control.

*cue A Modest Proposal*
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11068
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Mon May 27, 2013 3:05 pm

Klaudandus wrote:Ohio school district's new curriculum mandates that for controversial issues, "all sides" of the issue are to be presented
http://www.boarddocs.com/oh/scsdoh/Boar ... 240%20.pdf

For purposes of this policy, controversial issues include: religion when not used in a historical or factual context, sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and any other topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion and/or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.

Image

Was tempted to bold evolution, but I find it more WTF worthy that they actually consider teaching Glenn Beck conspiracy theories.


Global warming, climate change, and sustainable development is controversial? Wtf did I miss?
Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3935
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon May 27, 2013 3:13 pm

Amirya wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:Ohio school district's new curriculum mandates that for controversial issues, "all sides" of the issue are to be presented
http://www.boarddocs.com/oh/scsdoh/Boar ... 240%20.pdf

For purposes of this policy, controversial issues include: religion when not used in a historical or factual context, sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and any other topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion and/or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.

Image

Was tempted to bold evolution, but I find it more WTF worthy that they actually consider teaching Glenn Beck conspiracy theories.


Global warming, climate change, and sustainable development is controversial? Wtf did I miss?


Its obviously unamerican!
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11068
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Mon May 27, 2013 4:25 pm

Klaudandus wrote:
Koatanga wrote:Are you certain of your figures? Have you taken into consideration the Social Security and medicare cost of people living full lives instead of dying early from smoking-related illnesses?


I personally think vaccination was the worst thing ever... we needed the bugs to kill massive swaths of us when our population gets out of control.

*cue A Modest Proposal*

As the discussion was about the costs of smoking as pertains to the level of taxation, it's relevant to consider the increased lifespan of non-smokers and the impact they have on social security and medicare.

As long as the cost of smoking-related problems is less than the combination of the taxation and the use of public funds by longer-lived non-smokers, then the level of taxation on smokers is appropriate.

I'm just saying when doing the maths on that one, you have to consider what the smoker would cost if he didn't smoke and therefore reached a ripe old age. For example, my dad died to lung cancer at 63, whereas his mother died at the age of 99. Had my father not smoked and lived another 30 years, 28 of which he would be entitled to social security, he would have cost the system a fair chunk of change. That cost off-sets some or even all of the cost of his cancer treatments and associated drugs.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
?php } else { ?