Pages: 1 … 146 147 148 149 150 … 175

 

2016-02-13 02:54:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

It is about helping people. You get the percentage of smokers down from 17% to 10% and you just saved 21,000,000 people from bad heath effects from smoking including cancer. That improves the overall healthcare system, increases the tax base, and provides millions of more parents to maintain households, and less of a burden on the social safety net.


You just can't argue the math.
In the meantime you turn millions of people into criminsls, create a thriving black market, destroy the economy in Virginia and North Carolina, and destroy tax revenue too. All so you can play The Sims with other people's lives.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-02-13 04:18:17
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6707|England. Stoke

Jay wrote:

coke wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Just a typical libertarian. Nonsensical outlook and ridiculous ideas.
None of which seem to have any form of cohesiveness, I'm not talking about "Libertarians" in general here, just Jay.
Ok
Well that ties it all together nicely.
2016-02-13 05:17:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

coke wrote:

Jay wrote:

coke wrote:


None of which seem to have any form of cohesiveness, I'm not talking about "Libertarians" in general here, just Jay.
Ok
Well that ties it all together nicely.
All you do is respond to my posts with the equivalent of . Why would you feel that I would engage with you? Post something of substance and you might get a substantive reply. Until then, "Ok" suffices.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-02-13 05:41:01
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

It is about helping people. You get the percentage of smokers down from 17% to 10% and you just saved 21,000,000 people from bad heath effects from smoking including cancer. That improves the overall healthcare system, increases the tax base, and provides millions of more parents to maintain households, and less of a burden on the social safety net.


You just can't argue the math.
In the meantime you turn millions of people into criminsls, create a thriving black market, destroy the economy in Virginia and North Carolina, and destroy tax revenue too. All so you can play The Sims with other people's lives.
You don't have to ban individual use. Just ban cultivation, importation, and sale.

Large corporations make up the majority of tobacco sales. They will go along with the ban and cooperate with enforcement. When CVS stopped selling cigarettes, sales of cigarettes in every state CVS had stores went down 1% when nicotine alternatives went up 3%. That is just one chain of stores.

Importation enforcement will be done by the existing customs agents. They just need to be trained to spot tobacco products.

A few farmers in Virginia will hurt but the total economic benefit once millions of people stop smoking will outweigh the cost to Virginians. The government spends more money on dealing with the health related cost of smoking than they make on taxes. Bad argument, Jay.

The black market for tobacco products will not be like other drugs. Tobacco doesn't produce euphoria like marijuana and heroin. There is really zero point to trying it.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-13 05:46:50
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

It is about helping people. You get the percentage of smokers down from 17% to 10% and you just saved 21,000,000 people from bad heath effects from smoking including cancer. That improves the overall healthcare system, increases the tax base, and provides millions of more parents to maintain households, and less of a burden on the social safety net.


You just can't argue the math.
In the meantime you turn millions of people into criminsls, create a thriving black market, destroy the economy in Virginia and North Carolina, and destroy tax revenue too. All so you can play The Sims with other people's lives.
You don't have to ban individual use. Just ban cultivation, importation, and sale.

Large corporations make up the majority of tobacco sales. They will go along with the ban and cooperate with enforcement. When CVS stopped selling cigarettes, sales of cigarettes in every state CVS had stores went down 1% when nicotine alternatives went up 3%. That is just one chain of stores.

Importation enforcement will be done by the existing customs agents. They just need to be trained to spot tobacco products.

A few farmers in Virginia will hurt but the total economic benefit once millions of people stop smoking will outweigh the cost to Virginians. The government spends more money on dealing with the health related cost of smoking than they make on taxes. Bad argument, Jay.

The black market for tobacco products will not be like other drugs. Tobacco doesn't produce euphoria like marijuana and heroin. There is really zero point to trying it.
Nicotine withdrawal drives people into fits of rage.

I wonder how you would feel if someone suggested banning asian porn. It's always "hey that's a good idea" when it's other people's vices that will be impacted. Would-be bullies love to meddle when they feel they have the moral high ground. It's sad. Just fuck off and let people live their own lives.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-02-13 06:50:57
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:


In the meantime you turn millions of people into criminsls, create a thriving black market, destroy the economy in Virginia and North Carolina, and destroy tax revenue too. All so you can play The Sims with other people's lives.
You don't have to ban individual use. Just ban cultivation, importation, and sale.

Large corporations make up the majority of tobacco sales. They will go along with the ban and cooperate with enforcement. When CVS stopped selling cigarettes, sales of cigarettes in every state CVS had stores went down 1% when nicotine alternatives went up 3%. That is just one chain of stores.

Importation enforcement will be done by the existing customs agents. They just need to be trained to spot tobacco products.

A few farmers in Virginia will hurt but the total economic benefit once millions of people stop smoking will outweigh the cost to Virginians. The government spends more money on dealing with the health related cost of smoking than they make on taxes. Bad argument, Jay.

The black market for tobacco products will not be like other drugs. Tobacco doesn't produce euphoria like marijuana and heroin. There is really zero point to trying it.
Nicotine withdrawal drives people into fits of rage.

I wonder how you would feel if someone suggested banning asian porn. It's always "hey that's a good idea" when it's other people's vices that will be impacted. Would-be bullies love to meddle when they feel they have the moral high ground. It's sad. Just fuck off and let people live their own lives.
Nicotine patches and gum will still be available. And your making my case if nicotine addicted people are a threat to others.

Asian pornography cannot give me or anyone else cancer. Doesn't cost anyone anything. Bad example.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-13 07:06:24
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717
My plan would statistically make the world a better place. All you ever do here is justify human suffering.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-13 07:45:03
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
Lol
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-02-13 10:51:21
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717

Jay wrote:

Lol
Glad you agree.

I am waiting for the FDA to start to publish studies on e-vaporizers. I am skeptical about unregulated companies selling juices that can't have its contents verified by an independent responsible institution. I know a private group found that in some cases the e-juices contain more cancer causing chemicals than regular cigarettes. I am also worried about young people using vapes because they think it is safe and then move onto unsafe products like hookah.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-13 11:58:10
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6769|PNW

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Wait, are we saying now that codes and architecture shouldn't adapt in the face of new information or environmental challenges because of costs? Well, fire up that lead paint factory and stuff the walls with asbestos. Who's up for a good poisoning? While we're at it let's go back to early automotive technology because who needs things like air bags or two-wheel drives anyhow?
No, I'm saying that overreaction to one-off events is dumb. After 9/11 new york city rewrote the building code as if planes crashing into buildings was going to become a regular occurrence.
But basically, you kind of are? If a recall on Jimmy-John's Deluxe Lardburgers occurred because an e. coli outbreak linked to tainted patties affected perhaps a few dozen customers, would you grouse on about how it was a corporate overreaction? What if a toy broke improperly into smaller pieces and someone's toddler choked to death on them? Would a recall also be out of line? No? Why then should altering building codes in response to a disaster that caused nearly 3,000 deaths and untold illness be considered an overreaction?
2016-02-13 12:17:01
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6103|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

No, I'm saying that overreaction to one-off events is dumb. After 9/11 new york city rewrote the building code as if planes crashing into buildings was going to become a regular occurrence.
How is it an overreaction to try to prevent a problem?

The 'planes crashing into building codes' were written before 9/11, some smart engineer or official foresaw it happening and didn't want the consequence to be a complete building with 1,000s of people in it coming down and 1,000s of preventable deaths.

The codes weren't quite up to scratch, even for the design spec aircraft size at the time, they were updated, not a big deal or huge overreaction.
If they had been up to scratch two wars could have been avoided - think about that.

Perhaps the codes should be torn up, stuff buildings full of asbestos and leaded paint, dose the AC with DDT to keep the insects down, allow people to smoke at their desks like they used to.

Jay wrote:

We do it constantly and it fucks up a lot of people's lives. How many people have been placed on sex offender registries for having underage sex, or sexting, or peeing in public?
That's a really stupid conflation, putting people in prison over trivia compared with re-writing engineering standards designed to save peoples lives.

Maybe you should be a Libertarian engineer, ignore all the standards and codes, you'll be able to undercut your competitors and win all the business.
Here's your slogan "Don't like the gubmint pushing you around? Come to Jay Engineering, we stick the finger up to the man"

In the case of firearms some simple steps - requiring people to keep guns inaccessible to children, making it near impossible for criminals and the mentally ill to buy them - wouldn't guarantee no future deaths but would cut them significantly.
Not doing so is a triumph of infantilism over common sense.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-02-13 12:34:49)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2016-02-13 12:26:00
uziq
Member
+492|3450

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:


In the meantime you turn millions of people into criminsls, create a thriving black market, destroy the economy in Virginia and North Carolina, and destroy tax revenue too. All so you can play The Sims with other people's lives.
You don't have to ban individual use. Just ban cultivation, importation, and sale.

Large corporations make up the majority of tobacco sales. They will go along with the ban and cooperate with enforcement. When CVS stopped selling cigarettes, sales of cigarettes in every state CVS had stores went down 1% when nicotine alternatives went up 3%. That is just one chain of stores.

Importation enforcement will be done by the existing customs agents. They just need to be trained to spot tobacco products.

A few farmers in Virginia will hurt but the total economic benefit once millions of people stop smoking will outweigh the cost to Virginians. The government spends more money on dealing with the health related cost of smoking than they make on taxes. Bad argument, Jay.

The black market for tobacco products will not be like other drugs. Tobacco doesn't produce euphoria like marijuana and heroin. There is really zero point to trying it.
Nicotine withdrawal drives people into fits of rage.

I wonder how you would feel if someone suggested banning asian porn. It's always "hey that's a good idea" when it's other people's vices that will be impacted. Would-be bullies love to meddle when they feel they have the moral high ground. It's sad. Just fuck off and let people live their own lives.
the rationale is not a moral one. it is not about behavioural norms or morality. it is about health and cost to the taxpayer. how are you so catastrophically misunderstanding this?
2016-02-13 13:02:27
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6707|England. Stoke

Jay wrote:

coke wrote:

Jay wrote:

Ok
Well that ties it all together nicely.
All you do is respond to my posts with the equivalent of . Why would you feel that I would engage with you? Post something of substance and you might get a substantive reply. Until then, "Ok" suffices.
I don't really want you to engage with me, because as with the vast majority of the stuff you post in this section it'll probably be unfathomably scatter brained, and I simply don't know where to start when half your standpoints are so strangely "thought out".

Last edited by coke (2016-02-13 13:02:55)

2016-02-13 14:59:56
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:


You don't have to ban individual use. Just ban cultivation, importation, and sale.

Large corporations make up the majority of tobacco sales. They will go along with the ban and cooperate with enforcement. When CVS stopped selling cigarettes, sales of cigarettes in every state CVS had stores went down 1% when nicotine alternatives went up 3%. That is just one chain of stores.

Importation enforcement will be done by the existing customs agents. They just need to be trained to spot tobacco products.

A few farmers in Virginia will hurt but the total economic benefit once millions of people stop smoking will outweigh the cost to Virginians. The government spends more money on dealing with the health related cost of smoking than they make on taxes. Bad argument, Jay.

The black market for tobacco products will not be like other drugs. Tobacco doesn't produce euphoria like marijuana and heroin. There is really zero point to trying it.
Nicotine withdrawal drives people into fits of rage.

I wonder how you would feel if someone suggested banning asian porn. It's always "hey that's a good idea" when it's other people's vices that will be impacted. Would-be bullies love to meddle when they feel they have the moral high ground. It's sad. Just fuck off and let people live their own lives.
the rationale is not a moral one. it is not about behavioural norms or morality. it is about health and cost to the taxpayer. how are you so catastrophically misunderstanding this?
Except I don't live in a country with a national health system. I pay an insurance premium that has all that stuff baked in already. If I want to mainline heroin while puffing on a cigar with a cheeseburger shoved up my ass, it's between me and my insurance cimpany. None of this Marxist needs of the money trash applies.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-02-13 15:03:58
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
Frankly I think scolds like Macbeth want a NHS just so they can insert themselves and force people to behave as they deem appropriate. It's all very fascist and takes it back to the Progressive roots quite nicely. What were hygiene laws for the poor a century ago become fat quotas today. The engineer in me loves the symmetry.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-02-13 15:08:35
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Wait, are we saying now that codes and architecture shouldn't adapt in the face of new information or environmental challenges because of costs? Well, fire up that lead paint factory and stuff the walls with asbestos. Who's up for a good poisoning? While we're at it let's go back to early automotive technology because who needs things like air bags or two-wheel drives anyhow?
No, I'm saying that overreaction to one-off events is dumb. After 9/11 new york city rewrote the building code as if planes crashing into buildings was going to become a regular occurrence.
But basically, you kind of are? If a recall on Jimmy-John's Deluxe Lardburgers occurred because an e. coli outbreak linked to tainted patties affected perhaps a few dozen customers, would you grouse on about how it was a corporate overreaction? What if a toy broke improperly into smaller pieces and someone's toddler choked to death on them? Would a recall also be out of line? No? Why then should altering building codes in response to a disaster that caused nearly 3,000 deaths and untold illness be considered an overreaction?
Ok. Like I said, you're paying for it, not me. If you feel like a four story building in Queens should be protected from plane attacks then I'm happy to design it for you. Don't get me wrong, most of the building code is top notch and a wonderful starting point, but a good chunk was written in reaction to one-off events because the media riled people up.

But hey, I'm sure you're all more familiar with the ICC than me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-02-13 15:15:17
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717
We should tax unhealthy food. Especially soda. Use the profits to educate people on eating well and making healthy lifestyle choices.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-13 15:23:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-02-13 16:54:35
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6769|PNW

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Jay wrote:

No, I'm saying that overreaction to one-off events is dumb. After 9/11 new york city rewrote the building code as if planes crashing into buildings was going to become a regular occurrence.
But basically, you kind of are? If a recall on Jimmy-John's Deluxe Lardburgers occurred because an e. coli outbreak linked to tainted patties affected perhaps a few dozen customers, would you grouse on about how it was a corporate overreaction? What if a toy broke improperly into smaller pieces and someone's toddler choked to death on them? Would a recall also be out of line? No? Why then should altering building codes in response to a disaster that caused nearly 3,000 deaths and untold illness be considered an overreaction?
Ok. Like I said, you're paying for it, not me. If you feel like a four story building in Queens should be protected from plane attacks then I'm happy to design it for you. Don't get me wrong, most of the building code is top notch and a wonderful starting point, but a good chunk was written in reaction to one-off events because the media riled people up.

But hey, I'm sure you're all more familiar with the ICC than me.
You're evading the analogy by citing a hypothetical to make a blanket statement. I'm certain you're more familiar with building codes than I am. I'm also certain a doctor would know more about medicine than I do, but it wouldn't stop me from seeking a second opinion if I wasn't confident in a diagnosis. Knowing more about rote shit doesn't make your cynical opinion infallible (reinforced by my own anecdotal experience from working with engineers as they overlook the obvious or fail to account for common contingencies) or automatically supersede all others.
2016-02-13 17:08:34
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6769|PNW

SuperJail Warden wrote:

We should tax unhealthy food. Especially soda. Use the profits to educate people on eating well and making healthy lifestyle choices.
I don't think high punitive taxes would necessarily work for combating unhealthy addiction. The middle class would shrug it off, the poor would become even poorer, and Americans would still be fat. Ever sat next to a chain smoker who was griping about the high price of cigarettes as they lit one after another?

Perhaps a small step in the right direction would be to ensure that schools don't receive heaping glops of unappetizing garbage for cafeteria lunches. Next to one of those week-old pizzas with near-solidified, greenish cheese that you can barely chew unless you slather it with ranch dressing, or broccoli plates that have been steamed to the point of pale deflation, a Big Mac seems downright heavenly.
2016-02-14 03:27:03
uziq
Member
+492|3450

Jay wrote:

Frankly I think scolds like Macbeth want a NHS just so they can insert themselves and force people to behave as they deem appropriate. It's all very fascist and takes it back to the Progressive roots quite nicely. What were hygiene laws for the poor a century ago become fat quotas today. The engineer in me loves the symmetry.
how is the NHS fascist again? a huge portion of its expenditure and stress is down to preventable disease and poor lifestyle choices.
2016-02-14 03:30:34
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Frankly I think scolds like Macbeth want a NHS just so they can insert themselves and force people to behave as they deem appropriate. It's all very fascist and takes it back to the Progressive roots quite nicely. What were hygiene laws for the poor a century ago become fat quotas today. The engineer in me loves the symmetry.
how is the NHS fascist again? a huge portion of its expenditure and stress is down to preventable disease and poor lifestyle choices.
how dare doctors tell people how they live their lives.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-02-14 04:45:21
uziq
Member
+492|3450
'the NHS' has almost no political powers. the doctors don't make the law, and they seldom affect policy. you two are acting as if the NHS has any political power or influence. it's a health service full of medical professionals. they can barely dictate their own salaries and funding let alone what laws gets passed putting restrictions on peoples' lives.

doctors have targets to try and get people to quit smoking but that's a long way away from 'telling people how to live their lives'. and those goals and targets were only introduced as a result of... increasing privatisation of the health service. go figure. state heath is so fascist.
2016-02-14 05:09:56
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714
i was being sarcastic.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-02-14 06:10:46
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

uziq wrote:

'the NHS' has almost no political powers. the doctors don't make the law, and they seldom affect policy. you two are acting as if the NHS has any political power or influence. it's a health service full of medical professionals. they can barely dictate their own salaries and funding let alone what laws gets passed putting restrictions on peoples' lives.

doctors have targets to try and get people to quit smoking but that's a long way away from 'telling people how to live their lives'. and those goals and targets were only introduced as a result of... increasing privatisation of the health service. go figure. state heath is so fascist.
No, I was saying that having an NHS gives weight to arguments about vices impacting the "greater good". It's a tool used by totalitarians, not totalitarian itself.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 146 147 148 149 150 … 175

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard