Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

So the GMD social thread is finally closed after almost 500 pages? Are we starting a new one or just letting it disappear?

edit: Yes, this is news to me.

What the hell are you talking about? It's not closed.

 

[Dak]

What the hell are you talking about? It's not closed.

News from yesterday. It reopened.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You take your love of negative freedoms to such extremes. It's almost admirable.

In other news looks like Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. This is really upsetting and basically my home state Massachusetts giving a giant middle finger to all the poor uninsured people of America. Massachusetts already has universal healthcare so the federal legislation wouldn't change the situation there, but by electing Brown he is going to stop the Democratic super majority. I still don't understand why the Democrats can't pass a bill with a 59-41 majority, but apparently they are that incompetent. Bush was able to start a war and cut taxes for his rich friends with less of a majority than the Democrats have.

With this and the earthquake in Haiti I'm a little burned out on depressingly awful world news. I think I'm going to make myself blissfully ignorant for a while and keep my mind on things more pertinent to myself.

I'd say you were already blissfully ignorant of the problems with the health care situation in your state given how large the budget deficit is there and the fact that your health care costs are still rising. But of course that's no surprise.

 

[Dak]

I don't think anyone under the age of 20 here understands what a deficit is and why it is a major problem.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

As far as the seatbelt law goes, it of course exists to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities, and as far as public safety based laws it's easily one of the more sensible ones. It is of negligible inconvenience to the driver to wear a seatbelt, and the estimates are that it saves at least 10,000 lives a year in the U.S, so it seems pretty stupid to oppose the law on the basis of "my God-given right to drive with freedom of motion in my torso".

If you want to bitch about public safety laws, stick to the ones that actually do interfere significantly in people's lives for a negligible or perhaps nonexistent benefit, i.e. laws that ban a hallucinogen because a single depressed kid somewhere in the country uses it and then loses his inhibition to kill himself.

 

[Dak]

As far as the seatbelt law goes, it of course exists to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities, and as far as public safety based laws it's easily one of the more sensible ones. It is of negligible inconvenience to the driver to wear a seatbelt, and the estimates are that it saves at least 10,000 lives a year in the U.S, so it seems pretty stupid to oppose the law on the basis of "my God-given right to drive with freedom of motion in my torso".

If you want to bitch about public safety laws, stick to the ones that actually do interfere significantly in people's lives for a negligible or perhaps nonexistent benefit, i.e. laws that ban a hallucinogen because a single depressed kid somewhere in the country uses it and then loses his inhibition to kill himself.

I don't exactly walk around with signs opposing seatbelt laws . But if it was going to be brought up I gave my 2cents on it. It is just another example of government over-reaching.


Back to the WHO tax, here is a good breakdown over the whole issue with plenty of extra sources to look at:

Crobett Report: Why we must oppose the WHO global tax proposals

Excerpts:

In a painstakingly researched article from December 2009, F. William Engdahl identified Albert Osterhaus, the so-called "Dr. Flu" who was the WHO's chief influenza advisor, as another key individual in the scam. Ostershaus is chairman of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza, an advisory group financed by Novartis, Hoffman-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Baxter Vaccines, Sanofi Pasteur and other companies that were estimated to have made as much as 8 billion Euros in profit from the WHO's declaration of pandemic emergency. Osterhaus was also a member of the WHO's scientific advisory group, SAGE, which advocated that a pandemic emergency be declared despite this bout of H1N1 being potentially the mildest influenza outbreak in recorded history.

At almost the precise moment when the WHO global taxation ambition was exposed, reports began to emerge that a 'humanitarian' program administered by another UN organization, UNICEF, had failed. Remarkably, a review of the program—which was intended to provide basic supplies and humanitarian aid to African children—found that children who were receiving the UN aid actually died at higher rates than children who received no aid at all.

Although the UNICEF program may seem like an isolated example of the failure of a humanitarian project, the UN as a whole is replete with examples of supposedly benevolent programs causing disorder, unrest, and even death. UN peacekeepers have become renowned the world over for their corruption, with child abuse, rape, human trafficking and torture becoming (even by the UN's own admissions) a systemic problem. UN administered programs to provide women in Botswana with infant formula have led to widespread infant death and UN run tests of anti-AIDS gels actually increased the likelihood of participants contracting AIDS.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't exactly walk around with signs opposing seatbelt laws . But if it was going to be brought up I gave my 2cents on it. It is just another example of government over-reaching.

All your 2 cents seemed to amount to was comparing it to outlawing knives, baseball bats etc., which is a shit argument, so I don't see what your point is here. It's not "government over-reaching" if it's actually a sensible law that saves thousands of lives a year in return for the most minor inconvenience imaginable.

 

[Dak]

All your 2 cents seemed to amount to was comparing it to outlawing knives, baseball bats etc., which is a shit argument, so I don't see what your point is here. It's not "government over-reaching" if it's actually a sensible law that saves thousands of lives a year in return for the most minor inconvenience imaginable.

Two different things. The knives and baseball bats was in reference to outlawing things that can be used to kill people.

The sole point in reference to seat belt laws is the right to govern my own body.

Not wearing a seat belt doesn't kill you. Your bad driving or someone else's does (or an "act of God"). I should not face a fine in the hundreds of dollars and an increase on my insurance for not having a strap over my chest.

Regarding a much more controversial "safety option", air bags, I again have to get government approval to disable, regardless of whether I have decided it to be an unsafe option.

Airbags associated with increased probability of death

NHTSA Approval Required for Airbag disconnection

As I have said before, government should not exist to protect me from me.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Maybe if each of us happened to live on our own island where our deaths did not affect anyone else your logic would be sound. As it is though, our deaths can affect a lot of people, not just emotionally but financially. If you get seriously injured or killed from being thrown out of your car in an accident, there will probably be a lot of money wasted trying to save/heal you that otherwise would not have been wasted. That's a shitty thing to risk burdening your family and/or the health care system with.

If nothing else, I do not see "The Right To Govern My Own Body" as something sacred that trumps all other considerations (i.e. reducing harm throughout society), nor do I find it wrong for someone to be coerced not to do something that is patently an unequivocally stupid. If you really give that little of a shit about risking your life, the risk of getting arrested is probably among the least of your concerns, so you might as well not wear the thing anyway.

edit: as far as airbags, you probably have more of an argument there.

 

[Dak]

Maybe if each of us happened to live on our own island where our deaths did not affect anyone else your logic would be sound. As it is though, our deaths can affect a lot of people, not just emotionally but financially. If you get seriously injured or killed from being thrown out of your car in an accident, there will probably be a lot of money wasted trying to save/heal you that otherwise would not have been wasted. That's a shitty thing to risk burdening your family and/or the health care system with.

If nothing else, I do not see "The Right To Govern My Own Body" as something sacred that trumps all other considerations (i.e. reducing harm throughout society), nor do I find it wrong for someone to be coerced not to do something that is patently an unequivocally stupid. If you really give that little of a shit about risking your life, the risk of getting arrested is probably among the least of your concerns, so you might as well not wear the thing anyway.

edit: as far as airbags, you probably have more of an argument there.

I am not arguing against seat belt use by the way. I am arguing against the law for it. I eat healthy, but I would be against a law for requiring Americans to eat healthier.

I know we don't all live in a vacuum, and that our decisions do affect at least those closest to us. But by making daily things basically a non choice, society is weakened to the point of children mentally, since they don't have to make any [serious] choices even on a basic level. I think the evidence for this in America is overwhelming.

Also, there is the whole argument of "where is the line drawn?"

Trading Freedom for the Illusion of Safety

An excellent editorial with plenty of documentation. It does not address seat belts or airbags, but government over-reaching as a whole.

 

[Dak]

On a more "positive" note:

Dow Chemical ready to test Solar Shingles

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I am not arguing against seat belt use by the way. I am arguing against the law for it. I eat healthy, but I would be against a law for requiring Americans to eat healthier.

The inconvenience involved in eating healthier is not negligible like it is with wearing a seatbelt, I already explained that.

I know we don't all live in a vacuum, and that our decisions do affect at least those closest to us. But by making daily things basically a non choice, society is weakened to the point of children mentally, since they don't have to make any [serious] choices even on a basic level. I think the evidence for this in America is overwhelming.

Christ what an exaggeration. I understand that there are people out there gaming the system, but that does not mean the government is feeding us, tying our shoes, getting us up in the morning for school/work, finding jobs and spouses for us, etc. I don't know what the hell you're even on about here.

Also, there is the whole argument of "where is the line drawn?"

It's a complicated question to answer, but that doesn't mean common sense has to be abandoned for some kind of political purism. For example, if the people in our governments were a little smarter they would come up with some actual standards to justify public safety laws (i.e. certain thresholds of "amount of harm" which, as the level of harm increases, the criteria for how invasive the law is become less strict) rather than just basing them on the knee-jerk reactions of the most loudmouthed constituents.

 

[Badbird]

You take your love of negative freedoms to such extremes. It's almost admirable.

In other news looks like Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. This is really upsetting and basically my home state Massachusetts giving a giant middle finger to all the poor uninsured people of America. Massachusetts already has universal healthcare so the federal legislation wouldn't change the situation there, but by electing Brown he is going to stop the Democratic super majority. I still don't understand why the Democrats can't pass a bill with a 59-41 majority, but apparently they are that incompetent. Bush was able to start a war and cut taxes for his rich friends with less of a majority than the Democrats have.

With this and the earthquake in Haiti I'm a little burned out on depressingly awful world news. I think I'm going to make myself blissfully ignorant for a while and keep my mind on things more pertinent to myself.

I don't like this either.Massachusetts know better then this.The poor people in my state aren't going to have a good time now, with a republican now in office.

 

[Dak]

The inconvenience involved in eating healthier is not negligible like it is with wearing a seatbelt, I already explained that.

But the savings in health care are monumental compared to wearing a seat belt or not.

Christ what an exaggeration. I understand that there are people out there gaming the system, but that does not mean the government is feeding us, tying our shoes, getting us up in the morning for school/work, finding jobs and spouses for us, etc. I don't know what the hell you're even on about here.

I really wasn't referring the the gaming of the system. But the government is (attempting) to find jobs, get us to and from work, and feed us (although not by actually placing the spoon in the mouth). I consider all the above "babysitting" in general.
Of course, as I stated before, I would have no problem with the above programs and laws being on an actual state by state basis with no federal input. Then we would actually get to see the real varying results (cost and effective wise) from social systems ranging from spartan to comprehensive.

It's a complicated question to answer, but that doesn't mean common sense has to be abandoned for some kind of political purism. For example, if the people in our governments were a little smarter they would come up with some actual standards to justify public safety laws (i.e. certain thresholds of "amount of harm" which, as the level of harm increases, the criteria for how invasive the law is become less strict) rather than just basing them on the knee-jerk reactions of the most loudmouthed constituents.

The problem is, people in government from the top to bottom are no more or less intelligent than the average American. They are in a unique position to play god though, and most politicians make full use of this position.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Actually most of them are just doing their jobs.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Of course, as I stated before, I would have no problem with the above programs and laws being on an actual state by state basis with no federal input. Then we would actually get to see the real varying results (cost and effective wise) from social systems ranging from spartan to comprehensive.

Pretty much the answer to every other political debate. States' rights ftw.

The problem is, people in government from the top to bottom are no more or less intelligent than the average American.

Even worse is that a lot of average Americans would rather vote for someone they 'could have a beer with' than someone who actually knows what they're doing.

 

[Matt]

Regardless, most businesses offer health care coverage of some sort. It's already been shown that under Obamacare, many smaller businesses will be put under because they can't offer good enough coverage. Now the ones with less health care now also don't have jobs. The business is no longer paying taxes, the people are now on unemployment instead of producing/paying taxes.

The whole plan is a fail and instead of trying to explain how it isn't,the best that you can do is fail at insulting me for having been in the military. Bravo.

Apparently you don't understand anything either. I wasn't insulting you, I was just showing how hypocritical military people can be when they have full hc for their dependents.

Small business will not have to give full coverage to part time employees either, so that part of the argument is wrong. I'm not saying the plan is great right now, either. I was making a case for a public option and massive reform in general, something not being accomplished in the bill right now. I'm also not a fan of the mandatory buy-in.

Also, with the stupid fucks letting a Republican win Mass, it appears that the big climate legislation bill is going to die. I don't get why conservatives are so against anything that has to do with the environment, either. Makes no sense. It almost seems like they'd rather kill the planet than have an increase in their taxes.

3. How about you walk in the shoes of someone who has ever had to work a job to support a family, pay the bills, vote, etc. ? I love self-righteousness from teenagers.
Or how about anyone whining about the government need to provide them with healthcare because they can't afford it, go join the military? Oh yeah, but that would require some work.

LOL, ok dude. Not only am I paying my own way through St. Louis University, I'm going into the Army Special Forces as an officer after I get my degree. I'll probably accomplish more than you ever did before even finishing combat school.

And how exactly is showing concern for others being "self-righteous"?

 

[Dak]

Apparently you don't understand anything either. I wasn't insulting you, I was just showing how hypocritical military people can be when they have full hc for their dependents.

I don't see how it's hypocritical to want people to work for what they get just because [you] did.

Small business will not have to give full coverage to part time employees either, so that part of the argument is wrong. I'm not saying the plan is great right now, either. I was making a case for a public option and massive reform in general, something not being accomplished in the bill right now. I'm also not a fan of the mandatory buy-in.

Well at least you aren't suggesting mandatory buy ins, but as it stands now, if you look at the detaisl of the bill it is nothing but a huge win for big beaurocracy and big insurance/pharma. Not exactly the "major reform" that is needed.

What is "full coverage" varies depending on whom you ask, and my point is that many small businesses won't be able to provide the level of health care that is being discussed even for full time employees, not even mentioning part time.

A fall out from that would be either switching everyone to parttime or going out of business entirely.

Also, with the stupid fucks letting a Republican win Mass, it appears that the big climate legislation bill is going to die. I don't get why conservatives are so against anything that has to do with the environment, either. Makes no sense. It almost seems like they'd rather kill the planet than have an increase in their taxes.

While I am no Republican fan, if this guy merely votes "no" to pretty much every bill I have read about in Congress (other than the "Audit the Fed" bill) he will be doing a good job.

Edit: If you can explain what about the climate legislation bill actually is going to improve the environment then I am all ears. The US military/industrial complex has done more to hurt the environment in the last 2 decades than the entire population of the US combined since 1776. Taxing the average guy to hand money to who knows what isn't going to fix a damn thing.

LOL, ok dude. Not only am I paying my own way through St. Louis University, I'm going into the Army Special Forces as an officer after I get my degree. I'll probably accomplish more than you ever did before even finishing combat school.

And how exactly is showing concern for others being "self-righteous"?

Well only the first part of the statement was aimed at you but ok. It's self righteous when it is backed up by nothing (and misdirected).

Anyway, regarding your plans: Kudos, but a couple of things:

1:A plan is something that hasn't happened yet.
2:I am assuming what you mean by "paying for college yourself" means getting student loans, and then using the Army College Loan Repayment Program. Then you actually have to get the commission as a Green Beret. It's an admirable plan, but let me know how it is going in 4 years. Plans have this funny way of changing.

 

[Badbird]

I still wonder who the people voting Scott Brown are?This hurts the big climate legislation bill big time,which is not a good thing.

 

[Dak]

Based off the numbers I would say every other person in MA voted for him plus some extra. So probably the people who live on either side of you.