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: 9508
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: 6465
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: 6465
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: 3447
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: 1600
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: 9508
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: 6465
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: 1600
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?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
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: 9508
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: 9508
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: 9508
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?
Image

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: 2959
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: 9508
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.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Mon May 27, 2013 6:04 pm

Don't forget survivor's benefits though, which erodes that offset.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Tue May 28, 2013 4:56 am

"My" math (which, I'll freely admit, isn't done by me, but skimmed off some studies a good while ago) does take that into consideration. The nota bene in my math is "under socialised healthcare" ie healthcare where the patient has 0 out of pocket expense and it is all payed for through taxation.

An addendum to that, whne looking at the scandinavian healthcare systems (which have been socialised for a good long while, so will likely be representative) - the wealthiest part of the population get a relatively higher part of the treatments than what would be "fair" when looking at the tax distribution. This ha snothing to do with ealth as such, but the fact the the more money you make, the more likely you are to be a ressourceful person, that demands more from the healthcare system, as opposed to less wealthy people, generally being less resourceful (and more authoritarian) so they get less in the healthcare system, and get sent home more easily.

That is besides the point though - the nonsmoking populace get older, but they are healthier as they get older than the smoking populace is even though they die younger (all generally speaking). The societal benefits of not smoking outweight the societal benefits of not having to care for someone into their old age.
(and keep in mind, these studies when being done under socialised healthcare include the pensions of the same countries, so in scadinavia a age pensioner currently recieves 1500 USD gross per month (before things like rent adjustment) as a married or cohabitating pensioner, and 2050 USD gross per month as a single pensioner.
A Single pensioner in a rented flat like the one I live in will in addition be given 550 USD in rent assistance (tax free), so a single pensioner will have a monthly net income of 2050 USD (in the case of my flat, the rent assistance would actually equal the taxes) - a yearly net income of 24,600 USD, all from the government for singles (slightly lower for married or cohabitating couples of course, but they would recieve a higher rent assistance).

^the above is to illustrate that the expenses of growing old is, indeed, included in the studies I'm leaning on.
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: 1600
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue May 28, 2013 5:43 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby aureon » Tue May 28, 2013 9:36 am

Klaudandus wrote:
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!


American_Politics.html
Creationism.html
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue May 28, 2013 9:44 am

Well the unamerican part was me being facetious to a degree...

But there is people that do think that certain topics/policies are inherently unamerican.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Jabari » Tue May 28, 2013 12:44 pm

Klaudandus wrote:And the reason why I don't talk about the parts I agree with republicans is because, according to my friends it makes me a racist and a hater of my own race (being part latino)...


Sounds like you need new friends, then. *shrug*

Out of curiosity, where do you get your news and info from?
In one century we went from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to offering remedial English in college.
Jabari
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Jabari » Tue May 28, 2013 12:52 pm

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


Probably referencing "anthropogenic global climate change" (i.e., man-made global warming), which is somewhere between "controversial" and "a complete fabrication".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
In one century we went from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to offering remedial English in college.
Jabari
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Tue May 28, 2013 1:15 pm

Reading that article, I see a lot of interesting stuff about the solar cycles and how it effects temperature, and then a bunch of unsupported assertions of how man-made global warning is nonsense. Piggybacking "man-made global warming doesn't exist" on the back of unrelated scientific information that neither proves nor disproves it doesn't really make a valid argument. Just because temperatures are affected by one thing doesn't mean they're not affected by others.

Edit: An analogy occured to me this morning to deomnstrate my problem with this article. The argument against global warming in this article is like me saying "I get woken up every morning by cars in the street outside, therefore my alarm clock doesn't work."
Last edited by KysenMurrin on Wed May 29, 2013 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4960
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Tue May 28, 2013 3:51 pm

Yeah, that article is pretty poor. It's an opinion piece by a pundit about a field where he disagrees with most of those who actually study it scientifically for a living. Excuse me if I completely ignore him.

"Global warming" isn't very descriptive, I'll give you that. Weather is a very chaotic system where it's hard to predict specifics (but easier to predict global trends). More and more climate sceptics are coming around to the idea that humans have played a part in the climate change.
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby aureon » Tue May 28, 2013 8:47 pm

(Emphasis mine)
Forbes wrote:You will not get the truth about that from the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the rest of the self-regarded “establishment” media. They are devoted to the fun and games of play acting as if there is no legitimate scientific debate over whether mankind’s use of low cost, reliable energy from oil, coal and natural gas portends catastrophic global warming that threatens life on the planet as we know it.


http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Well, everyone is entitled to one's own opinion, on Maintankadin, on Forbes, anywhere.
But not to one's own facts, ESPECIALLY on Forbes.
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 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: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest