GasBandit
Staff member
If the Rwandan genocide had been performed with Nerf weapons and sockem boppers, maybe.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
And I quote
And assuming the stat of 75% obesity among lesbians is correct I think it's exactly the kind of study that should be funded.
Even with the current level of debt? I think there's better things we can spend our money on, or better yet, not spend our money on.
Take the money out of oil and farm subsidies. Once we regain those billions I'll care about $1.5 million.
Besides we've already funded the NIH with that money. If the NIH believes that the money is best spent on this study that I agree wholeheartedly.
As soon as people agree with the definition of the word "subsidy" that would be fine.
The economist definition is paying money from the government to a producer for a good. Completely made-up numbers: So if a farmer can sell sugar on the market for $3 per pound (totally made up numbers remember) but they also get $1 from the government for every pound they sell, then there's a subsidy. The government is giving money to a producer.
What is ALSO called a subsidy by activists is if Canada charges $50 a tree to cut it down on government land (and the forestry people keep the lumber, etc), and the USA charges $75 per tree, people have claimed that Canada is giving a $25 per tree subsidy. I wish I was making this one up, but this has ACTUALLY HAPPENED. This basic idea is the basis of a trade dispute between our two countries. So this is where a company is not paying "enough" to the government, thus the claim of the government "subsidizing" them.
See the difference between the two? The first is agreed by all to be a subsidy. The 2nd obviously is not the same thing, but is often lumped together because of the theory the government "could" have had the money. But it misses an important economic fact: the amount of production is not static in either case. With a subsidy, producers have an incentive to produce more than they would have, as their goods are more profitable, so the more activity in the sector, the more money the government loses because of increased production. But with a fee, the higher it is, the less production there is (each unit of production costs more). So they are clearly not equivalent.
Why did I say this? Farms almost always get subsidies. They're everywhere in the "developed" world (it's actually a major criticism from 3rd-world countries on how they can't compete on food crops, and are stuck with cash crops, which don't feed their people, but that's another story). Oil companies generally don't. Oh sure they exist, but if you take by percentage of produced energy, it's not the majority by a long shot. No matter how much an oil company pays to drill (or mine, or whatever) on land, SOME group SOMEWHERE will claim they're not paying enough, and they'll call that a subsidy. Thus the widespread (but wrong) belief that oil companies get all sorts of subsidies. They generally do not.
So you are arguing that the tax breaks and tax write offs are not in fact a "subsidy"?
They're not at all the same thing, hence my 4th paragraph showing the different economic effects of them. Lower taxes to remove barriers to production are not the same as giving people money to produce.
GasBandit
Staff member
They are when your political perspective starts from the assumption that all money belongs to government and they decide by tax rates (or "breaks" for industries you don't like) how much they're going to allow companies and private citizens to keep.
Don't really know where to put this, but I'm sure Gas will have an opinion:
Illegal Music Downloads Not Hurting Industry, According To Study
Illegal Music Downloads Not Hurting Industry, According To Study
I think my favorite thing about the GoP and Republicans in General is they're focus is going to continue to ruin them.
They still honestly believe they lost because America doesn't -Understand Conservatism- and they have to push, harder than ever, to get people to understand. The funny thing is though, regardless of what they think, the majority of people who voted against the GoP this time around weren't doing it because they're whiny hand-me-out government babies. Many of them are hard working conservatives financially speaking. It's alot simpler than that, and they just don't get it because they don't want to:
The Republican Party will continue to lose big elections because of it's Anti-Pro-Choice views, it's Anti-Gay Rights views, and it's hardcore Catholic/Christian stances.
That's what's really costing them the elections. People understand Conservatism just fine, and the majority of people on Welfare are there because they have to be, not because they want government hand outs. However, when given a choice between two people who promise the same thing financially, but are bigots/overly-religious/try to control what women do to their own bodies, they're going to lose every time. Most Republicans are at an age that they cannot understand the drastic shift in America's views. We're not the same nation we were 50yrs ago morally. We don't see things the same way anymore.
Anti-Gay is the new Anti-Black/Minority.
Pro-Choice is now the popular view vs Pro-Life
Atheism is on the rise and Catholism/Christianity is already looking for new ground in Africa to make up for all the lost ground elsewhere.
Gun Rights, financially independence, and alot of the other Conservative views are fine and actually embraced by most, unfortunately for the GoP, they are blind to what's going on. It's why they lost the Presidency and will continue to lose major elections till they get it right.
They still honestly believe they lost because America doesn't -Understand Conservatism- and they have to push, harder than ever, to get people to understand. The funny thing is though, regardless of what they think, the majority of people who voted against the GoP this time around weren't doing it because they're whiny hand-me-out government babies. Many of them are hard working conservatives financially speaking. It's alot simpler than that, and they just don't get it because they don't want to:
The Republican Party will continue to lose big elections because of it's Anti-Pro-Choice views, it's Anti-Gay Rights views, and it's hardcore Catholic/Christian stances.
That's what's really costing them the elections. People understand Conservatism just fine, and the majority of people on Welfare are there because they have to be, not because they want government hand outs. However, when given a choice between two people who promise the same thing financially, but are bigots/overly-religious/try to control what women do to their own bodies, they're going to lose every time. Most Republicans are at an age that they cannot understand the drastic shift in America's views. We're not the same nation we were 50yrs ago morally. We don't see things the same way anymore.
Anti-Gay is the new Anti-Black/Minority.
Pro-Choice is now the popular view vs Pro-Life
Atheism is on the rise and Catholism/Christianity is already looking for new ground in Africa to make up for all the lost ground elsewhere.
Gun Rights, financially independence, and alot of the other Conservative views are fine and actually embraced by most, unfortunately for the GoP, they are blind to what's going on. It's why they lost the Presidency and will continue to lose major elections till they get it right.
There might be some truth to the findings in the study. Though many would argue that Intellectual Property Rights as they currently stand are a bit of a mess, and that most of the music industry is comprised of a bunch of money-grubbing exploitative butt-holes, as the last couple of paragraphs in that article implied it is still neither right nor legal to go about pirating stuff.
Gilgamesh, you seem like a guy who can explain yourself pretty clearly when you want to, so perhaps you could give a little more detail into your statements. Since your current post is full of commonly used political rhetoric, I'd like to get your views on specific statements.
Do you mean that they have fiscally conservative views or are simply "hard workers"?
:
Not that I'm calling this statement into question exactly, but what are you basing this on? Furthermore, do you think the government has a hand in why they're in welfare in the first place?
Are you positing that there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans in regards to "financial promises"-only that one group has a shinier smile than the other?
Also:
How would you classify a bigot? Is someone who is anti-religious a bigot? What do you consider to be overly-religious? What would someone who's "moderately" religious be? Would they still go to church weekly? Read *insert religious text here* on a regular basis?
Do you consider someone who believes that a fetus is a life and fights to protect that life to be someone of ignoble character? Do you believe the true intentions of so-called "anti-pro-choice" to specifically be about harming women's health?
So what you're saying is, most Republicans are fairly old and therefore out of touch? What about young Republicans? Do you chalk it up to family influence?
You view this as a net positive, correct?
I'm not sure what it is, but something about this statement just strikes me as wrong.
The GoP paints all liberals/democrats/most of the public as lazy, government mooching babies. I'm saying that many of them are hard working financially smart folk.
Basing it on the factual numbers that were released (I'll try and find a link a bit later) that shows that large majorities of Welfare recipients are the elderly, disabled and military. Many are active in seeking jobs and do not stay on Welfare long.
No, I'm saying that the majority of people in today's world, would choose the opposite of what the GoP thinks is good for America (Pro-Life/Anti-Gay) if both choices were offering the same financial choices. The GoP thinks that given the same financial choices, that the majority of Americans would vote for Pro-Life/Anti-Gay.
It's simple: Bigot = Someone who would deny equal rights to someonelse based on Gender/Sexual Preference/Race
Overly-Religious = Someone who speaks the Bible as infallible and when confronted with factual evidence that disproves it, will deny it vehmently. Or when there's a double standard that they have no trouble standing on ie: Fetus should have the rights of all living humans. Unless it's gay.
I think Pro-Life is a fine opinion to have, as long as you don't force it on those who's choice it really is: the pregnant woman.
I chalk it up to having to play the part or they'll be booted out of the Republican Party (as has happened many times) or just simply being out of touch with anything out of their comfort zone. A comfort zone surrounded by these old outdated ideals.
Absolutely. Morally we are no longer opposed to interracial couples. Morally we are opposed to gender/racial inequality and every day that passes we are majority morally opposed to Anti-Gay hatred.
Probably because you are religious? If not, then I can't explain it. Atheism is the path to fact only. Religion is the path of fact or because God makes magic.
Bullshit. Atheism as you put it can never give a value judgement. Belief is always there foundationally.
How can Atheism say killing somebody is bad? You can say you don't want it to happen to you, but even hypocrisy can be justified, because you don't need to justify anything. Things like fairness, and quid-pro-quo are all just values we have in us, that we then apply to everything else. In the end, there's still an irrational belief at the foundation of your personal concept of what is "just" or not, even in Atheism. You can try and prove that it's "rational only" but even proving that it allows more people to live, more happiness, or anything else, showing that those are "good" is still a belief. If someone believed the "best" thing was for them to be the only one left on earth (or everybody gone) that's as valid to "fact only" philosophies as somebody else believing that we should all run around fields holding hands all day long. You always need a base assertion of "this thing is what I consider 'good'" to go from there, and base the rest of your values on. And that belief is always irrational.
Herbert said it best IMO: "Scientists seek the lawfulness of events. It is the task of Religion to fit man into this lawfulness." (from Dune)
Sorry, I've just never heard an atheist say that his non-existent god wants him to mistreat any group of people the way Catholics used to mistreat Blacks and now mistreat Gays. With Atheism, it's up to the person. Maybe the person is a racist, but at least they don't blame it on a -higher power-
Just in case I have to make this disclaimer at some point:
I realize not ALL religious people are like this or ALL Republicans are like this. I'm very obviously directing these comments at the ones that are. Sadly, as usual, the negative ones I'm addressing are the most vocal and currently most popular in the media.
GasBandit
Staff member
Americans largely don't understand conservatism. They hear "conservative" and think of the GoP, which is not actually conservative. I know a lot of people have signatures turned off, so I'll repeat a quote from mine in the body:
"All politically potent parties believe in a powerful, pervasively engaged state. They differ only in regard to which specific individuals should steer the Leviathan." - Robert Higgs
IE, the only thing that really, pragmatically separates republicans from democrats is they think republicans should be in charge. They want government to be as much in your face and in control of your life almost as much as any communist, just for technically different reasons. Mark my words - even if republicans ever get back power, the government, the budget, neither will shrink. It never does. Even the sequester that garnered so much howling and rending of garments - didn't actually reduce spending levels, it simply made the increase smaller. And everybody lost their fucking mind over it.
Anyway, yeah, piracy. Piracy isn't damaging the music industry, I agree. The music industry is doing so much damage to itself it's impossible to quantify any other source of damage because it is dwarfed in comparison to that wrought by a stone-age business model and all the ill will generated by suing all their customers and their grandmas, and being awarded penalty sums larger than you'd get for most violent crimes.
"All politically potent parties believe in a powerful, pervasively engaged state. They differ only in regard to which specific individuals should steer the Leviathan." - Robert Higgs
IE, the only thing that really, pragmatically separates republicans from democrats is they think republicans should be in charge. They want government to be as much in your face and in control of your life almost as much as any communist, just for technically different reasons. Mark my words - even if republicans ever get back power, the government, the budget, neither will shrink. It never does. Even the sequester that garnered so much howling and rending of garments - didn't actually reduce spending levels, it simply made the increase smaller. And everybody lost their fucking mind over it.
Anyway, yeah, piracy. Piracy isn't damaging the music industry, I agree. The music industry is doing so much damage to itself it's impossible to quantify any other source of damage because it is dwarfed in comparison to that wrought by a stone-age business model and all the ill will generated by suing all their customers and their grandmas, and being awarded penalty sums larger than you'd get for most violent crimes.
I would argue that Bayonetta is far more progressive and pro-feminist than most games.
Bayonetta is confident and capable. She's older than most female protagonists in gaming (she looks about 30, most are 20 or in their teens) and while she is obviously oversexualized, it is as a parody that is played very tongue in cheek.
So yeah, I'd agree.
Geez, I could barely watch a quarter of that. I mean, I didn't agree with everything in the original video but it was at least watchable.
GasBandit
Staff member
What made it "unwatchable?"
Probably all the bullshit.
GasBandit
Staff member
Seemed just as valid as the work it was criticizing.
Zappit
Staff member
Boy, that was an extraordinarily condescending rebuttal video. Despite it spoofing steroetypes, it latches on to one of the most common assaults on feminism: the turnabout to emphasize how bad men have it. By making it a central point of his argument, (being that anyone can find any pattern they want in anything) he seems to invalidate his own points by reducing it to a big sarcastic bit that goes on way too long. His Double Dragon Neon example was a quick bit at the end of the game that only appeared in the new version, and not in any version that's appeared in the last two decades.
Claiming that the developers make games to make profits doesn't disprove Sarkeesian. At all.if anything, it's reinforcing that developers rely on the same hackneyed stories and goals, which was kind of the point of the Tropes video.
Sarkeesian makes a lot of fair points - some seemed a bit of a stretch - but the basic ideas of doing different stories, having respectable female characters, and avoiding the hypersexualization of women in videogames are completely valid. You can't make a fun videogame like that? Come on. Making such an argument is not deserving of the ridicule and dismissive sarcasm she gets. The attitude alone ruins this particular counter argument.
He also loses major points just for using the word "strawman". That's like the new argument buzzword that everybody uses to dismiss someone else's perspective - usually in a condescending manner. Those who use it in arguments also have a nasty habit of being full of crap. So there's that.
Claiming that the developers make games to make profits doesn't disprove Sarkeesian. At all.if anything, it's reinforcing that developers rely on the same hackneyed stories and goals, which was kind of the point of the Tropes video.
Sarkeesian makes a lot of fair points - some seemed a bit of a stretch - but the basic ideas of doing different stories, having respectable female characters, and avoiding the hypersexualization of women in videogames are completely valid. You can't make a fun videogame like that? Come on. Making such an argument is not deserving of the ridicule and dismissive sarcasm she gets. The attitude alone ruins this particular counter argument.
He also loses major points just for using the word "strawman". That's like the new argument buzzword that everybody uses to dismiss someone else's perspective - usually in a condescending manner. Those who use it in arguments also have a nasty habit of being full of crap. So there's that.
GasBandit
Staff member
I think it would have been a great victory for feminism if Billy and Jimmy HAD just shrugged and gone back into the garage, saying, "she's not an object, she's a capable woman who can overcome her own obstacles in life and I won't cheapen her struggle by engaging in base violence."
Holy crap... the term is used in the same way it has always been used, it has not changed at all.