If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
I'm just heading over to transissues.com to tell them that all they care about are trans issues, brb
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,672
- 9,650
- 113
no because the only divide she made (after clarifying) was between
a) stuff that doesn't benefit heterosexual men but benefits other people
b) everything else (which includes not only stuff that exclusively benefits heterosexual men but also stuff that benefits both or neither).
she needs to give examples of stuff that's outside the entire scope of B, not just part of it.
oh god this is way too autistic for this time of night im stopping now
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
I'll put it another way. Penis-in-vagina rape is a kind of rape that is exclusively perpetrated by heterosexual men against women. From her earlier claim, she would be implying that a) laws against penis-in-vagina rape aren't supported here because they don't benefit heterosexual men (obviously wrong, I don't think anyone here supports rape) or b) laws against penis-in-vagina rape do benefit heterosexual men.
Dak
mentat
I don't know why so much was made about Omni's "oops I didn't mean what I said" post.
Either she did mean it originally, which would be simply wrong, or she meant it as she claimed after, which is merely an assertion that white cishet males are pro-equality. In either case, at best it's a red herring and at worst an ad hom. Overall, it should have been ignored.
The concept, the function of insurance is the pooling resources to cover shared risk, generally risks of an unlikely (on the individual level) but catastrophic nature which one person alone would be ill equipped to handle. Like cancer, car wrecks, epic floods, etc. Not elective cosmetic surgery. Not birth control. Not even Viagra. It's not a magic money tree. There also shouldn't be FEMA coverage for hurricane damage on the Eastern Seaboard/Gulf but I digress.
All laws are at gunpoint. If there's a law that "insurance" must pay out for things that some payees have zero "risk" for, it's a wealth transfer at gunpoint. Furthermore, the more things that go under the umbrella of "insurance", that are constant/regular payouts, the cost is going to go up. I'll say it again (even though it still won't sink in for the target audience): it's not a magic money tree.
Either she did mean it originally, which would be simply wrong, or she meant it as she claimed after, which is merely an assertion that white cishet males are pro-equality. In either case, at best it's a red herring and at worst an ad hom. Overall, it should have been ignored.
The concept, the function of insurance is the pooling resources to cover shared risk, generally risks of an unlikely (on the individual level) but catastrophic nature which one person alone would be ill equipped to handle. Like cancer, car wrecks, epic floods, etc. Not elective cosmetic surgery. Not birth control. Not even Viagra. It's not a magic money tree. There also shouldn't be FEMA coverage for hurricane damage on the Eastern Seaboard/Gulf but I digress.
All laws are at gunpoint. If there's a law that "insurance" must pay out for things that some payees have zero "risk" for, it's a wealth transfer at gunpoint. Furthermore, the more things that go under the umbrella of "insurance", that are constant/regular payouts, the cost is going to go up. I'll say it again (even though it still won't sink in for the target audience): it's not a magic money tree.
rms
Active Member
lol are you anti FEMA for tornadoes in the midwest?
But yes, insurance has become something different than a fallback system to unexpected illnesses. I would think a government funded/subsidized system would steer away from this, but apparently is embracing it.
But yes, insurance has become something different than a fallback system to unexpected illnesses. I would think a government funded/subsidized system would steer away from this, but apparently is embracing it.
Dak
mentat
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
The odds of any one particular person losing their home to a tornado is relatively low. Tornados are also sort of an all or nothing strike when they occur as well, and can leave one house standing while knocking out the neighbor. Despite the individual risk being low (even in the midwest), the community risk is much higher. So you have the at risk community pool resources to cover whoever is actually hit. (I'm not a fan of FEMA in general, but we'll treat it like insurance in this case).
OTOH, hurricanes are a practical certainty, hit everyone when they hit, and do varying degrees of damage from total destruction to just putting everything under 2 feet of water(but even a weak hurricane will do serious damage along places like the NC Outer Banks). FEMA becomes a subsidization program for expensive building on the coastline, with the knowledge that the magic money tree of FEMA will foot the bill when it is inevitably damaged.
Krow
Garbage Connoisseur
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investi...ill-bail-out-rich-when-next-storm-hits-n25901
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/04/3655491/peak-sand-coastal-property-bubble/
http://fee.org/freeman/uncle-sams-flood-machine/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Insurance/story?id=94181
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ut-harm-way/DAYejBqkIvP74NPW2yRRYN/story.html
Anecdotally, when I was a little kid my grandparents took us to a friend's beach cottage at the OBX. When I was a kid, almost every house on the oceanfront street was a small, singlestory cottage. That same street was completely changed around the late 90s to multistory deluxe condos (including the cottage we visited, it became a 4 story condo). It has been flooded to varying degrees repeatedly.
Of course, this subsidization is an effect of the misuse of "insurance", it isn't the beginning of the causal chain, so my points have nothing to do with discounting poor people.
rms
Active Member
I'm not doubting FEMA can be used by wealthy people when they don't need it, but what is the ratio? What is the comparison between midwest damage and hurricane damage? We can even throw wildfire damage in this now. (I believe wildfire is specifically for rich people, but I haven't seen it as fact yet). FEMA is basically in place because flood, hurricane and tornado insurance is considered a luxury, not a basic right.
Dak
mentat
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Weather/story?id=99457&page=1
Destruction
Hurricanes cause about $3 billion in damage each time they touch ground in the United States and about $5 billion annually, according to a 1998 NOAA study.
The roughly 1,000 tornadoes that strike the United States each year cause about 10 times less in damage — or about $500 million in total, according to a 2001 NOAA study.
A historical look reveals an even starker difference in the two storms' destructive power.
The top 30 most damaging hurricanes in the last 100 years (normalized to account for higher population, wealth and inflation) have each caused more than $2.9 billion in damage. Only the most damaging tornado in the last 100 years — if it hit today — would cause about $2.9 billion in damage: the May 1896 St. Louis tornado, which killed 255 people."
rms
Active Member
I'm looking more for persons effected/displaced. No one is going to dispute that coastal regions have a higher degree of wealth attached to them. This article doesn't really cite what the qualifications for FEMA are in relation to the $5bil annually as well.
Dak
mentat
I don't know what your point is.
On the problem in Germany:
http://quillette.com/2016/01/18/after-cologne-feminism-is-dead/
rms
Active Member
It's easy. For every 100 payments given out by FEMA, who do they go to? What are the demographics of their reimbursements? One strip of real estate in Miami or OBX could be similar to entire small towns in the midwest.
If we look only at financials the picture is not clear. It's obvious to everyone that coastal cities have more expensive real estate etc. But you're suggesting that rich people are taking advantage of east coast FEMA policies while midwest FEMA are more legitimate. The payout system should clarify that. Nothing you've cited talks about the ratio of payments to certain demographics of people, rather just blatant evidence of how corporations (and rich people) can take care of the government.
Today, on the other hand, most of the Muslims arriving in Europe from the Near East seem to be young men of fighting age: So sick of reading this without any statistics brought up. Laziest narrative ever.
Amazing that anti-semitism somehow flourished in this short time period as well. The fear mongering is bananas
If we look only at financials the picture is not clear. It's obvious to everyone that coastal cities have more expensive real estate etc. But you're suggesting that rich people are taking advantage of east coast FEMA policies while midwest FEMA are more legitimate. The payout system should clarify that. Nothing you've cited talks about the ratio of payments to certain demographics of people, rather just blatant evidence of how corporations (and rich people) can take care of the government.
Today, on the other hand, most of the Muslims arriving in Europe from the Near East seem to be young men of fighting age: So sick of reading this without any statistics brought up. Laziest narrative ever.
Amazing that anti-semitism somehow flourished in this short time period as well. The fear mongering is bananas
Dak
mentat
I'm not looking for that data because it doesn't matter even one iota. Poor people would also be "taking advantage of it", just to a (much) lesser degree.
Anti-semitism in amongst Muslims is amazing?
It's not a lazy narrative re: demographics of refugees in Europe:
http://time.com/4122186/syrian-refugees-donald-trump-young-men/
"In Europe, over 800,000 migrants have traveled to Europe by sea in 2015, according to the United Nations refugee agency, and a little over half have come from Syria. About 62% of all migrants that have traveled to Europe this year, however, are men."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/08/refugee-surge-brings-youth-to-an-aging-europe/
"According to data compiled by Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical agency, 81% of the 689,000 people who had formally applied for asylum in EU countries this year (through August) were younger than 35; more than half (55%) were ages 18 to 34. Hundreds of thousands more refugees are expected to arrive before year’s end; one news report states that German authorities expect as many as 1.5 million asylum-seekers in that country this year."
The shrill cries of xenophobia like to quote the #s of total refugees, of which "fighting age men" make up only rouhly a quarter. The problem is the refugees aren't making the more dangerous and distant treks into Europe consistent with their overall demographic makeup.
Similar threads
