Controversial Statements - Bring em - No weak sauce allowed! Homelessness: A Mercy Sex Ploy?

[Lobstergirl, el principe]

I'm not talking about inputs and outputs. Those are the words you're using. Let's make it totally simple and just use the word "costs." Medicaid is a cost. Tax deductions are costs. They are things which subtract from revenues. In the same way that cutting back calories, and getting some exercise, are both things which would subtract from my weight.

[Lobstergirl, el principe]

Hmm. Well, if you don't think tax deductions/tax expenditures/tax subsidies are costs, then you are over there on the economic/political spectrum with Friedrich von Hayek, Arthur Laffer, and Grover Norquist. Everyone to the left of them thinks of them as expenditures, costs, and subsidies.

"Tax expenditures are government revenue losses resulting from provisions in the tax code that allow a taxpayer or business to reduce his or her tax burden by taking certain deductions, exemptions, or credits. Tax expenditures have the same effect on the federal budget as government spending."

Read more - really. Sponsored by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Pew Charitable Trusts.

http://subsidyscope.org/tax-subsidies/

[Félix]

Arthur Laffer. That name always cracks me up.

[Félix]

She doesn't do that.

[Félix]

Try to win.

[Lobstergirl, el principe]

Seriously, yes, over there with Grover Norquist. The framework you are adopting is the framework of the far right. I'm not trying to win anything. This isn't a contest. I'm trying to clarify terms.

[Lobstergirl, el principe]

I mean, seriously - you don't think the mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy? It's a subsidy to people who buy houses with a mortgage and then itemize their deductions. It gives buyers an unfair economic advantage over renters. How is that not a subsidy? Every tax expenditure is a subsidy of some kind. And the fact is that most of them benefit rich people, and because a tax deduction's value increases when someone's marginal tax rate increases, they are even more unfair and biased on behalf of the rich. If you are going to argue that this "framework" isn't useful, you're casting your lot with rich people and everyone on the far right.

[Lobstergirl, el principe]

A subsidy is a cost.

[Félix]

A reduction from potential revenue.

[evie]

I'm feeling giddy.

[Félix]

Who is Giddy?

[Félix]

Mmmmmmmmm . . . pumpkin.

[evie]

Félix wrote: "Who is Giddy?"

No one you know.

[Félix]

heh heh

[Félix]

Blubbery.

[janine]

I like this thread when there's food. < --- not a controversial statement

[Félix]

Food without weak sauce.

[Janice]

I like food with savory sauce.

[Kevin]

A cashless society would reduce crime dramatically.

[Félix]

Kevin "El Liso Grande" wrote: "A cashless society would reduce crime dramatically."

As in "money is the root of all evil"?

[Kevin]

i beg to differ:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busines...

http://gizmodo.com/5882836/lets-kill-...

would be tougher to complete drug deals, prostitution and other transactions people don't want records of. people wouldn't rob the pizza guy or stick up a liquor store. etc etc

[Cheri]

I wouldn't like it if every transaction I did was somehow recorded somewhere for someone to see sometime. I would rather have a coconut or stone money system.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/0...

[Phil]

Félix wrote: "Kevin "El Liso Grande" wrote: "A cashless society would reduce crime dramatically."

As in "money is the root of all evil"?"

I believe it is the love of money, as in 1 Timothy, "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

Yes, I'm still the resident atheist.


Shut up.

[Félix]

Love ya, Phil.

[Lobstergirl, el principe]

Phil's bible study has been paying off.

[Félix]

Yeah I missed that, too.

[mark]

the capacity for a conscience and for altruism, the ability to do 'good' things that do not protect you (or your family) or that do not give you any tangible benefit, the ability to act in a way that is not self- (or family-)interested, feelings of compassion and empathy, the innate understanding that some actions are inherently, 'morally' wrong ... could all be considered as proof for the existence of God.

[Kevin]

phil is right about the verse.

mark: you may be right but that was too deep for me

bun: you may be partially right but i am partially right too. there would be possibly more of that crime but definitely less crime in general without cash. your assumption that everyone would be able to manipulate online roadblocks and become more savvy than those fighting digital crime is incorrect at least in the current time and near future. it takes a lot more skill set to do any of those things than it does to conk a dude on the head with a brick and take his actual hard currency.


BUT, this is a good controversial convo. thanks for adding to it

[Phil]

mark wrote: "the capacity for a conscience and for altruism, the ability to do 'good' things that do not protect you (or your family) or that do not give you any tangible benefit, the ability to act in a way th..."

Only by those predisposed to such belief.

[mark]

mark: you may be right but that was too deep for me

well shoot! my thoughts are a big grey area on that one. it is a controversial statement for me personally because throughout my life i've gone through periods of believing it utterly and then doubting it, and then back again.

okay, the other controversial statements.

cash-free society... my thoughts tend toward society will still have crime and violence, because that is often a hallmark of human nature. cash or no cash. but perhaps it would lessen the amount, much like a gun-free society would certainly lessen the amount as well.

welfare fraud... i think this is highly overrated. one of those things my hardcore conservative relatives always seem to be up in arms about, and i usually just roll my eyes.

e-theft... i think it is theft but i have a big case of i-could-care-less. except for indie music and indie press, where it seems that ongoing theft could tangibly hurt or challenge the artist, it just doesn't bother me.

[mark]

Only by those predisposed to such belief.

for me it boils down to... what necessary function do those traits have, for humans as a species? i don't see what use they have on an evolutionary level and so can't explain why they would exist in human nature. and so i wonder about the reason for their existence.

[Phil]

There are many, I'm sure. The first that comes to my mind is species survival via community. If I don't take care of others the community begins to crumble and we're more easily overrun by whatever (or whoever) comes along.

[Félix]

Eat! Eat!

[mark]

Phil wrote: "There are many, I'm sure. The first that comes to my mind is species survival via community. If I don't take care of others the community begins to crumble and we're more easily overrun by whatev..."

makes sense, but i'm not sure if that really explains altruism, empathy, etc. "taking care of others" could really equal simply protecting 'your own' (whether it is the family or the community), establishing a leader, providing food, etc. none of those activities require altruism or empathy.

[Lobstergirl, el principe]

Mark, how do you feel about capital letters?

[Phil]

mark wrote: "makes sense, but i'm not sure if that really explains altruism, empathy, etc. "taking care of others" could really equal simply protecting 'your own' (whether it is the family or the community), establishing a leader, providing food, etc. none of those activities require altruism or empathy."

How about survival of the species? If I don't properly care for my (or the community) offspring, the community (or species) suffers for it; the next generation is weakened.

Whether to help someone of an age close to my own is a tougher calculation... which of us is more likely to improve the chances for community survivability? If the other, I should then sacrifice myself for them.

None of this is anywhere near a conscious decision.

We could do this dance all day.

[Jammies]

Phil wrote: "Félix wrote: "Kevin "El Liso Grande" wrote: "A cashless society would reduce crime dramatically."

As in "money is the root of all evil"?"

I believe it is the love of money, as in 1 Timothy, "For ..."

Thank you, Phil, for pre-empting my pedantic pondering.

Oh, and in Chaucer, it's "Radix malorum cupiditas est." :D

[mark]

We could do this dance all day.

oh i'm not trying to win an argument, if that's the impression i'm giving! i'm actually just trying to clarify my own thoughts by hearing what other folks have to say. all of my friends irl are athiests or agnostics and none have any interest in discussing these things with me. hello, on-line community!

[mark]

Lobstergirl wrote: "Mark, how do you feel about capital letters?"

they are not my natural default. once long ago, constant use of lower case letters was a constant mistake. now i have simply embraced them. although i do bust the capital letters out for certain formal occasions. like a Jane Austen review, for example.

[mark]

Alternatively we could postulate that empathy and altruism are not evolutionarily useful traits, they are side effects of some other trait that is evolutionarily useful. As for example the general tendency to feel protective toward anything with big eyes

this paragraph is really eye-opening! that was an unintentional pun. it is certainly food for thought.

although in some ways i am seeing what you are describing as "sympathy" rather than "empathy". i'm still not really sure how empathy gives us any kind of evolutionary advantage. if anything, it could be seen as a disadvantage, when applied to other threatening individuals or communities.

[Félix]

Evolutionary advantages often arise from combinations of traits. A trait that tends to make people want to care for youngsters coupled with a tendency to avoid or protect against those from outside the family/tribal group might be such a combination.

[mark]

makes sense. but i guess what i'm left trying to understand is the evolutionary advantage of truly emphasizing with others, including folks who could be dangerous or threatening on an individual level or to a community. rather than the need to protect or care for those who are weaker than us, which is a sympathetic reaction and is markedly different from empathy. in many ways i see empathy as a hallmark of the human condition. whatever the "human condition" even means.

[Phil]

mark wrote: "what i'm left trying to understand is the evolutionary advantage of truly emphasizing with others"

I think it's best!!!! To emphasize!!!! With exclamation points!!!!!

[mark]

oops! i make that mistake a lot. which is fairly pathetic, since i facilitate a quarterly training for peer support volunteers that is all about 'active listening' and empathy. egads! i am now emphasizing the pathos of my error. do you have any empathy for my condition?

[Phil]

mark wrote: "makes sense. but i guess what i'm left trying to understand is the evolutionary advantage of truly emphasizing with others, including folks who could be dangerous or threatening on an individual le..."

I disagree that caring for others is sympathetic, not empathetic. When a baby cries, the parent must put themselves in the place of that child to try to determine what is causing the distress. They are empathetic of the emotion the child is experiencing, and then working to allay the underlying cause.

Did you know empathy is evident in other species as well? It is not uniquely human.

[mark]

i did not know that. if you are talking about examples like a mother dog taking in an abandoned child of another species, that seems like a sympathetic response.

in regards to your example about a child crying... i dunno. that seems like it is mainly a sympathetic response as well - and a clinical one, when trying to figure out what is causing that distress. are they really connecting on the basis of shared emotions or shared experience when an adult cannot literally recall what it was like to be an infant? i see empathy as that explicit shared connection through the recognition of shared emotions and experience. i can empathize with a particular sort of murderer (well, manslaughterer, to be precise) because i have also experienced blinding rage over someone else's actions. i can empathize with a person who is feeling isolated or furious at the world or disappointed in their parents or frustrated by romantic partners because i have felt those emotions and can recall exactly how they felt. i know that i was a baby (i've seen the pictures!) but i do not recall the feelings i had during that time. i can love them, think they're cute, want to protect them, want to understand why they are unhappy in order to alleviate that unhappines... but i cannot literally put myself in their shoes, so to speak.

[Phil]

mark wrote: "i did not know that. if you are talking about examples like a mother dog taking in an abandoned child of another species, that seems like a sympathetic response."

When I wrote that I was thinking specifically of apes. You could probably find some research papers online if you want.

[Phil]

You said the response to a crying child is clinical. Well, I say empathy is used in the diagnosis.

[mark]

When I wrote that I was thinking specifically of apes. You could probably find some research papers online if you want.

thank you! i will. that sounds intriguing.

[Cheri]

If you have ever had a pedicure at a VietNamese nail salon, you will understand that they are still really pissed at us for that war.