Big Business Big Gov. Strange Bed Fellows - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 04-24-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

For the record I don't think I ever used the term "sellout". As you know, because I stated this several times, people will do what is in their best interest ( I don't make moral judgment, it is what it is - its the nature of life)...

For the record:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I[just find it ironic that some of us who are highly critical of big business, rich getting richer, Republicans being greedy, Haliburton, etc, etc. are perfectly willing to sellout their principles as long as a company like Phillip Morris is willing to fund government spending in exchange for protected status - even if the product as they would say, "kills".

Not that it matters, but I found it personally offensive for you to question the principles of persons here who support this bill.

Lets just leave it at that

aceventura3 · 04-24-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this is such a myopic way to understand regulation, it's dizzying.

I don't try to explain the impact of regulation, all I have done was to give an example of what happens when regulation restrict competition.

Quote:

what is required for ace or ustwo's position to be coherent is that you see regulation as an end in itself carried out in the interest of the technicians who fashion the regulation. which means that you exclude up front anything and everything that could make of regulation something coherent--you even exclude the end=point. i don't understand--maybe it's something that happens in conservativeland to normalize the way of "thinking" that has resulted in the iraq war--you know, whaddya mean incoherent, this is a way of thinking across the board.

If the FDA has regulatory control over the tobacco industry what will actually change? You must answer that question thoroughly to understand how the argument is coherent. If you don't take the time to do that, I certainly understand your problem with the argument.

Quote:

in the context of any negociated process, there are going to be trade-offs--it's what negociation is about--i don't see anything particular problematic in this particular situation--obviously pm supports this because if they don't, they are concerned about more draconian regulation against tobacco further down the road.

Or, Phillip Morris made moves to compartmentalize market risks. Hence they spun-off Kraft, and they spun-off their international tobacco company. The domestic company is now set up to assume no unpredictable market risk. Congress has provided the protection, the FDA can not even require the elemination of nicotine in cigaretts.

Quote:

obviously it is in the interests of other organizations who support such regulation to have something rather than nothing to show for their efforts. obviously it is in the interest of congress to appear to be operating in a direction that distinguishes it to some extent as an actor or arbitor. all this requires is that you think in a vague way about the process itself--but if you're going to claim that this is somehow about trial lawyers alone, you can't even do that: no wonder ace and ustwo oppose regulation in principle--they have views of it that MAKE regulation incoherent, and so they see only incoherence in it.

Why not specify those things you state and believe are obvious?

You also make a "straw man argument" by saying "about trial lawyers alone". Much has been written here, that is not about trial lawyers. Just like DC needs a single word to summarize a complex topic, seems you need a singular point to base your dispute on.

it's mind-boggling, really, that this sort of construct has any purchase with anyone.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

For the record:

Not that it matters, but I found it personally offensive for you to question the principles of persons here who support this bill.

I stand corrected.

Why is it offensive to question principles? I question my principles every time I am confronted with a major decision. I ask myself if the actions I am planning on taking are consistent with my principles? I ask myself what is it that I truly believe? Will the consequences of my actions be consistent with my principles?Are my principles correct? Has acting on my principles been good? Can I act in a manner more consistent with my principles?

If you or others communicate your priciples to me, I will ask those same questions and expect others will do the same with me. I my view there is nothing "offensive" with that.

P.S. You are correct this does not matter. As we dive into more and more trivia as it relates to the information in this thread, i think the value is totally lost. I will go back to non-fact based "drive-by" posts in the future.

dc_dux · 04-24-2008, 08:12 AM

(voluntary recall of post by author ...it was a cheap shot and counter-productive)

roachboy · 04-24-2008, 08:18 AM

first off i reacted to post 35 and when i was writing my response, i blurred ustwo and ace into each other. sorry ace. my bad.

yours is a more interesting argument, but i don't agree with its premises---dc is already engaged with you about some of the problems, so i'll defer to him.

more generally--and just to say this before i bow out of the thread--the way in which you interpret particular situations is informed entirely by the general approach you adopt--that's what conditions relevance of information and weight amongst relevant information or variables. that's why i posted what i posted in the way i posted it--i'm less interested personally in the analysis of this particular bill than i am in the ways that analysis is arrived at. call it a quirk.

loquitur · 04-24-2008, 10:36 AM

roachboy, everyone's interpretation of particular situations is informed by the general approach they adopt, and that's what conditions relevance of information and weight amongst relevant information or variables. It's not unique to ace. May I be so bold as to suggest that you do it too? I know I do, which is why I try to rethink premises every now and again. I have been known on occasion to be wrong, which I don't like, so I try to avoid it by preventive re-education.

roachboy · 04-24-2008, 10:46 AM

loquitor--o i know i approach most things from a set of assumptions--but i try to be flexible with them. there are some axiomatic areas i am less flexible about--like the idea that one can separate the economic from other aspects of social reality in any coherent way.

roachboy is much more rigid than i am about this sort of stuff---i position roachboy as a kind of meta-player in these games for the most part. partly i do it because i think that debate is more interesting if played at the meta-level, so it's about approach as much as what approach generates. i've been consistent about that much--even though it generates some static (what game are we playing?) and despite the occasional foray into donnybrooks.

politically, i'm less easy to pin than roachboy is--probably more radical than he is.
sometimes i get sick of roachboy....he's a product of the format we swim around in, and the format is itself kinda restrictive.

that why he's a fiction, you see.

dc_dux · 04-24-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

politically, i'm less easy to pin than roachboy is--probably more radical than he is.
sometimes i get sick of roachboy....he's a product of the format we swim around in, and the format is itself kinda restrictive.

that why he's a fiction, you see.

Truth be told, I am far less radical than dux. It comes from years as a lobbyist/political advocate for non-partisan public interest organizations where pragmatism is a requirement to best accomplish the goals of the organization. Often that means demonstrating a willingness to propose and accept compromises and make trade-offs if it will lead to some level of success.

The irony is that demonstrating that pragmatism here and supporting a bill that was initially proposed by Republicans in '04 because I believe it benefits public health, despite the trade-offs for PM, brought out the wrath of the Repubs!

I have never considered it selling out my principles to work for a non-partisan public interest organization that may not be as liberal as I am personally but shares many common goals and values. In fact, it helped me become more pragmatic.

Selling out my principles would be to work for a private trade association like the Tobacco Institute with which I have very few, if any, shared goals and values....despite the much higher pay!

But Ustwo probably still considers me a "democratic operative"...thats ok, I dont mind the label.

loquitur · 04-24-2008, 01:23 PM

Heh........ well then I should break this cycle by saying that what I post generally is my real opinion (except when I do a devil's advocate sort of thing or role-playing or a Socratic thing).

Like loquitur, I have few (very few) strong opinions, and am fairly flexible on the things I don't feel strongly about. I also believe very strongly in "live and let live," which is why I object when someone tells me that those who think differently from him/her are morally stunted or contemptible.

Ustwo · 04-24-2008, 01:39 PM

I am what I am and thats all that I am.

aceventura3 · 04-24-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Selling out my principles would be to work for a private trade association like the Tobacco Institute with which I have very few, if any, shared goals and values....despite the much higher pay!

Quote:

And I wont be buying PM stock.

Hey DC checked your pension/retirement plan, trust funds, mutual funds, or even the donor lists of those public interest organizations for stock, profits, or donations from those Tobacco Institute types with whom you have no shared goals and values? Of course you have, sorry that I even asked.

dc_dux · 04-24-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Hey DC checked your pension/retirement plan, trust funds, mutual funds, or even the donor lists of those public interest organizations for stock, profits, or donations from those Tobacco Institute types with whom you have no shared goals and values? Of course you have, sorry that I even asked.

ace.....I select my stocks and mutual funds personally, with assistance from my financial adviser. He knows what I am looking for. The mutual funds are all "socially responsible" and or "green" funds that exclude companies that make weapons, tobacco and other similar or related companies. On the plus side, they focus on companies that have a demonstrated environmental policy, respect for human rights, corporations that have a positive record of community relations and other factors.

In my retirement plan, the mutual funds I have selected are also "social choice" funds....and they, along with the rest of the mix (govt securities and munis...) have done exceedingly well over the last 20+ years and should enable me to retire early, if I choose.

I cant say for certain that they dont include some "dirty" or "socially irresponsible" businesses, but I tried the best I can.

I will leave the willful and knowing investing in death and human (and environmental) degradation to you and others if that is the choice you want to make.

aceventura3 · 04-24-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I will leave the willful and knowing investing in death and human (and environmental) degradation to you and others if that is the choice you want to make.

Ouch! But it gives me permission to respond.

So, you don't have a problem with the fact that government programs outside of the medical issues related to smoking and smoking related settlements are dependent on the financial well being of companies like Phillip Morris? Seems like anyone with an interest in the government spending supported by tobacco above the costs to government of tobacco has an interest in tobacco and perhaps share a few common goals. I guess that is another one of those "compromises" one has to make, right?

dc_dux · 04-24-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, you don't have a problem with the fact that government programs outside of the medical issues related to smoking and smoking related settlements are dependent on the financial well being of companies like Phillip Morris? Seems like anyone with an interest in the government spending supported by tobacco above the costs to government of tobacco has an interest in tobacco and perhaps share a few common goals. I guess that is another one of those "compromises" one has to make, right?

ace...in an ideal world, I would say ban tobacco products and fuck the producers.

But we dont live in that world. It is unrealistic to ban cigarettes....too many people are dependent or addicted and it would only create a bootleg or underground market, producing products of dubious quality (think grain alcohol in the days of prohibition) and the loss of significant tax revenue. So, as long as we, as a society, are stuck with cigarettes, I dont have a problem with a dependency on the financial well-being of the current producers

I simply want to see regulations that hold cigarette makers more accountable for the quality of their product, (including the nicotine content), honesty in marketing (ie no more bullshit that "light" cigarettes are less harmful) and greater reporting of their internal (non-competitive trade secrets) medical studies that they withheld or lied about for years.

I'm done with this one.

aceventura3 · 04-25-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...in an ideal world, I would say ban tobacco products and fuck the producers.

But we dont live in that world. It is unrealistic to ban cigarettes....too many people are dependent or addicted and it would only create a bootleg or underground market, producing products of dubious quality (think grain alcohol in the days of prohibition) and the loss of significant tax revenue. So, as long as we, as a society, are stuck with cigarettes, I dont have a problem with a dependency on the financial well-being of the current producers

I simply want to see regulations that hold cigarette makers more accountable for the quality of their product, (including the nicotine content), honesty in marketing (ie no more bullshit that "light" cigarettes are less harmful) and greater reporting of their internal (non-competitive trade secrets) medical studies that they withheld or lied about for years.

I'm done with this one.

I know the truth hurts. A willingness to face reality is a commendable trait, facing reality and then "turning tail" is not.

Your view of "compromise" is like a neighborhood church taking donations from the neighborhood drug dealer. Just like the church you think you can do good things with the money and you try to ignore where the money comes from. Then like the church you want to preach to others about morality, in your case you want to tell me

Quote:

I will leave the willful and knowing investing in death and human (and environmental) degradation to you and others if that is the choice you want to make.

. And you say you don't "see" it.

If you were my friend I would sit down with you and say "Stop".

"Stop" the pretense, you are not kidding anyone. If you don't see the flaws in your position, you have to be the only one.

"Stop" being a victim of circumstance. Stand up for what you believe in. I heard that having balls is the new black. You do not have to compromise on issues or on those things that are important to you.

"Stop" thinking that "things" are your enemy. Phillip Morris is a "thing". Government can tax/regulate or whatever, Phillip Morris out of business. People make the choice to smoke or not smoke and as long as there is demand smoking products will be supplied. Energy is better spent on the demand issue.

"Stop" the denial. Everyone knows that the tobacco industry is good for government revenues. Government wants the industry to do well enough for the billions settled on and now needed to supplement budgets. And on top of that many like you want the tobacco industry to help fund health care for children. Everyone knows these costs are passed on to consumers. Everyone knows that the poor disproportionately spend more on smoking than other wealth classes.

"Stop" thinking you have all the answers. There are unintended consequence to most acts. No one person can foresee them all. Use a cycle of feedback so when confronted with future problems the same mistakes are not made over and over, i.e. FISA. Liberal are on a path with FISA that wont turnout the way you think. Use the point of view of others to add value to your views rather than immediately dismissing the views of others.

Since you are "done" you may never read this, but if you do try not to respond. Your response will be emotional. Facing reality is tough, best of luck.

roachboy · 04-25-2008, 09:34 AM

the claim that you implicitly make to monopolize "reality" is pretty funny stuff, ace. your pollyanna world of market relations, understood to the exclusion of all other factors, just makes me laugh, particularly when you get arrogant about the kinds of claims that this market metaphysics justifies.

"add value to your views" indeed.

Ustwo · 04-25-2008, 10:08 AM

Being a libertarian in social matters allows me to really get a kick out of this debate.

I don't worry about people killing themselves smoking. I think its their right to do something harmful to themselves.

I don't have moral questions about helping out the worlds largest tobacco company in order to use some of the profit for my pet social programs and to get a feel good buzz that amounts to nothing changing in the status quo.

I don't feel bad if I buy stock in PM.

My conscience is clean.

It vaguely reminds me of the 'I think abortion is wrong but I support a womans right to choose.'

I'm glad I don't have to morally balance something I think is morally wrong and choice, its got to be difficult.

Tobacco companies are evil and sell poison to people but we will help one out for market dominance so we can feel good about a baby step to some sort of regulation.

Either the thought process is just completely alien, where you can compartmentalize your logic, or its talking out of both sides of their mouths. I think I know the answer.

dc_dux · 04-25-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If you were my friend I would sit down with you and say "Stop".

"Stop" the pretense, you are not kidding anyone. If you don't see the flaws in your position, you have to be the only one.

"Stop" being a victim of circumstance. Stand up for what you believe in. I heard that having balls is the new black. You do not have to compromise on issues or on those things that are important to you.

"Stop" thinking that "things" are your enemy. Phillip Morris is a "thing". Government can tax/regulate or whatever, Phillip Morris out of business. People make the choice to smoke or not smoke and as long as there is demand smoking products will be supplied. Energy is better spent on the demand issue.

"Stop" the denial. Everyone knows that the tobacco industry is good for government revenues. Government wants the industry to do well enough for the billions settled on and now needed to supplement budgets. And on top of that many like you want the tobacco industry to help fund health care for children. Everyone knows these costs are passed on to consumers. Everyone knows that the poor disproportionately spend more on smoking than other wealth classes.

"Stop" thinking you have all the answers. There are unintended consequence to most acts. No one person can foresee them all. Use a cycle of feedback so when confronted with future problems the same mistakes are not made over and over, i.e. FISA. Liberal are on a path with FISA that wont turnout the way you think. Use the point of view of others to add value to your views rather than immediately dismissing the views of others.

Since you are "done" you may never read this, but if you do try not to respond. Your response will be emotional. Facing reality is tough, best of luck.

ace...wow....talk about an emotional post....lol

We simply have a different outlook on life and politics...its no big deal.

I never said I am right and you are wrong nor did I ever claim that I have all the answers.

But if you were my friend, I would say:

Ustwo....my conscience is clean is well.

aceventura3 · 04-25-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the claim that you implicitly make to monopolize "reality" is pretty funny stuff, ace. your pollyanna world of market relations, understood to the exclusion of all other factors, just makes me laugh, particularly when you get arrogant about the kinds of claims that this market metaphysics justifies.

"add value to your views" indeed.

I am sure there are a few areas in my life where I am in complete and total denial of reality. The first step for me is to openly acknowledge that. I know I have biases. I know I have acted in manners inconsistent with my stated values and principles. I know I have many flaws. I know I can not possibly see all sides of an issue. I don't try to monopolize "reality", I do make attempts at humor and I am happy to know you found some in my post. Personally the - having balls is the new black - is my favorite. Actually that is one thing I like about Hilary Clinton, she will hunt, fish, drink shots, play football and chew tobacco with the best of them - but that goes of your point.

My market view is actually more complicated than how I post things here. Generally, I don't think people can get to high level discussions until there is agreement on certain truisms. Trying to defend a truism has proven very difficult for me. If I have an argument on the basis that over time "business" will earn profits commensurate with market risk and pass increased costs on to consumers, how can I clearly articulate that argument without trying to explain something that is to me at the simplest of concepts. Hence the explanations come across simplistically. Yet some here will argue all day long on that issue, and we never get to the next level. In this thread for example, we could have taken it in many directions, but what has the focus been? Trivial stuff in my opinion.

Being arrogant is one of my biggest (well second biggest

) attributes. I know it is a problem, and I have warned people about it. My arrogance often won't let me walk away, when everything else is telling me I should. I know I should have dropped this issue along time ago, but I couldn't. Being as arrogant as I am, to admit weakness take a lot of effort. What I have found when I write it, I can then control it.

Thanks for your help.

aceventura3 · 08-11-2008, 08:42 AM

I hope proponents of increasing tax rates in general and specifically using cigarette taxes to fund children's health care take note of the information contained in a WSJ editorial appearing in today's edition.

Quote:

Cigarette Tax Burnout
August 11, 2008; Page A14

Politicians in Annapolis are scratching their heads wondering what happened to all those chain smokers who were supposed to help balance Maryland's budget. Last year the legislature doubled the cigarette tax to $2 a pack to pay for expanded health-care coverage. Eight months later, cigarette sales have plunged 25% and the state is in fiscal distress again.

A few pols are pretending to be happy that 30 million fewer cigarette packs have been bought in the state so far this year. As House Majority Leader Kumar Barve put it, fewer people smoking is "a good thing." Yes, except that Maryland may be losing retail sales more than smokers. Residents of Maryland's Washington suburbs can shop in nearby Virginia, where the tax is only 30 cents a pack, and save at least $15 per carton.

The Maryland pols are so afraid this is true that they've made it a crime for residents to carry two packs of cigarettes that weren't purchased in the state. In other words, the state says it's legal to smoke, so long as you use cigarettes that the government can tax and thus become a financial partner in your bad habit. But if you dare to buy smokes across state lines, you can be fined.

Maryland is only the latest state to prove the folly of trying to finance government with a tax on a shrinking pool of smokers. In New York City and State, tobacco taxes have been raised so many times that the retail cost can exceed $9 a pack -- about double the national average. Few budget-savvy smokers in the Big Apple pay that tax. Patrick Fleenor, an expert on tobacco taxes at the Tax Foundation, estimates that there is "now a 75% gap between cigarette sales in the city and cigarette consumption." In other words, three out of four cigarettes are bought elsewhere or are contraband. Out-of-state purchases, tax-free Internet sales and a cigarette black market are booming.

In New Jersey, about 40% of the Marlboros and Virginia Slims that are lit up escape the $2.57-a-pack tax. In Washington State, evasion was so rampant that the legislature decided in 2005 to lower the 75% tax on cigars and other tobacco products as a way to raise revenue and help state retailers.

Members of Congress, please take note. Democrats are planning one more pre-election go at a $35 billion children's health program expansion (S-chip) funded by a 61-cent per pack tobacco tax increase. They justify the new levy as a "sin tax." OK, but if Americans don't start sinning a whole lot more, states and Uncle Sam are going to go broke.

Cigarette Tax Burnout - WSJ.com

dc_dux · 08-11-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I hope proponents of increasing tax rates in general and specifically using cigarette taxes to fund children's health care take note of the information contained in a WSJ editorial appearing in today's edition.

Cigarette Tax Burnout - WSJ.com

For those interested, I would offer a different perspective from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

Factsheets Index

Most notably

Responses to Misleading and Inaccurate Cigarette Company Arguments Against State Tobacco Tax Increases (Updated: 06.27.08 - pdf)

Raising Cigarette Taxes Reduces Smoking, Especially Among Kids (and the Cigarette Companies Know It) (Updated: 06.24.08 -pdf)

Raising State Cigarette Taxes Always Increases State Revenues and Always Reduces Smoking (Updated: 08.01.08-pdf)

Quite simply, raising cigarette taxes both reduces the number of kids who smoke and still provides a reliable source of revenue to the states. Every state that has increased its cigarette tax by a significant amount has enjoyed a substantial increase in revenue, despite tax-specific smoking declines and/or increased tax evasion. The only times a state receives less revenue than expected from a cigarette tax is when the state made an overly optimistic (unrealistic) revenue projection.

Readers can decide for themselves...a WSJ editorial or Tobacco Free Kids fact sheets.....along with considering the fact that SCHIP is one of the most successful and widely supported programs to come out of the federal government in the last 10 years.

Others can rehash this debate...makes no matter to me. A small increase in the number of Democrats in the House (to make it veto-proof, if necessary - it already has overwhelming bi-partisan support in the Senate that will be even larger with more Democrats) will result in its expansion so, from my perspective, its a win for millions of working class families regardless of who sits in the WH next.

aceventura3 · 08-12-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Readers can decide for themselves...a WSJ editorial or Tobacco Free Kids fact sheets.....along with considering the fact that SCHIP is one of the most successful and widely supported programs to come out of the federal government in the last 10 years.

Perhaps it is not an either/or proposition. The point in the WSJ was not to say taxes on cigarettes should be zero, but it was more a commentary on excessive taxes.

I ask the following - do you agree that there is a optimum tax? A point (tax rate) where taxes collected are maximized?

For example, for simplicity, lets say 1 million packs of cigarettes would be sold per year, under a zero tax. Taxes collected would be zero.

What if the tax was $100,000 per pack. Odds are no packs would be sold legally. The taxes collected would be zero.

So, at some point - let's say $1 per pack you may still have 1 million packs sold. Taxes collected would be $1 million dollars.

But if you raised it to $5 per pack perhaps demand goes down but still 500,000 packs are sold - taxes collected would be $2.5 million.

If $5 is good, perhaps $10 would be better, right? Perhaps, wrong - if demand goes down to 100,000 packs, the taxes collected would be $1,000,000.

In my view of this issue, if you graph demand and taxes there would be some kind of curve or pattern and an identifiable optimum tax level or levels.

Certainly as a society we could say discouraging smoking is more important than taxes, we could choose the $10 per pack tax over the $1 per pack tax. And collect $1 million in taxes rather than $2.5 million. But we should not pretend that tax rates have no impact on demand, nor should we ignore the impact of alternative sources for smokers to avoid excessive taxes.

This issue gets revisited because of new awareness of bad tax policy, like in the case of Maryland and New Jersey.

04-24-2008, 08:12 AM	#43 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	(voluntary recall of post by author ...it was a cheap shot and counter-productive) __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-24-2008 at 08:29 AM..

04-24-2008, 08:18 AM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	first off i reacted to post 35 and when i was writing my response, i blurred ustwo and ace into each other. sorry ace. my bad. yours is a more interesting argument, but i don't agree with its premises---dc is already engaged with you about some of the problems, so i'll defer to him. more generally--and just to say this before i bow out of the thread--the way in which you interpret particular situations is informed entirely by the general approach you adopt--that's what conditions relevance of information and weight amongst relevant information or variables. that's why i posted what i posted in the way i posted it--i'm less interested personally in the analysis of this particular bill than i am in the ways that analysis is arrived at. call it a quirk. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-24-2008, 10:46 AM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor--o i know i approach most things from a set of assumptions--but i try to be flexible with them. there are some axiomatic areas i am less flexible about--like the idea that one can separate the economic from other aspects of social reality in any coherent way. roachboy is much more rigid than i am about this sort of stuff---i position roachboy as a kind of meta-player in these games for the most part. partly i do it because i think that debate is more interesting if played at the meta-level, so it's about approach as much as what approach generates. i've been consistent about that much--even though it generates some static (what game are we playing?) and despite the occasional foray into donnybrooks. politically, i'm less easy to pin than roachboy is--probably more radical than he is. sometimes i get sick of roachboy....he's a product of the format we swim around in, and the format is itself kinda restrictive. that why he's a fiction, you see. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-24-2008, 01:39 PM	#49 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I am what I am and thats all that I am. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-25-2008, 09:34 AM	#55 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the claim that you implicitly make to monopolize "reality" is pretty funny stuff, ace. your pollyanna world of market relations, understood to the exclusion of all other factors, just makes me laugh, particularly when you get arrogant about the kinds of claims that this market metaphysics justifies. "add value to your views" indeed. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-24-2008, 10:36 AM	#45 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	roachboy, everyone's interpretation of particular situations is informed by the general approach they adopt, and that's what conditions relevance of information and weight amongst relevant information or variables. It's not unique to ace. May I be so bold as to suggest that you do it too? I know I do, which is why I try to rethink premises every now and again. I have been known on occasion to be wrong, which I don't like, so I try to avoid it by preventive re-education.

04-24-2008, 01:23 PM	#48 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Heh........ well then I should break this cycle by saying that what I post generally is my real opinion (except when I do a devil's advocate sort of thing or role-playing or a Socratic thing). Like loquitur, I have few (very few) strong opinions, and am fairly flexible on the things I don't feel strongly about. I also believe very strongly in "live and let live," which is why I object when someone tells me that those who think differently from him/her are morally stunted or contemptible.

04-25-2008, 10:08 AM	#56 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Being a libertarian in social matters allows me to really get a kick out of this debate. I don't worry about people killing themselves smoking. I think its their right to do something harmful to themselves. I don't have moral questions about helping out the worlds largest tobacco company in order to use some of the profit for my pet social programs and to get a feel good buzz that amounts to nothing changing in the status quo. I don't feel bad if I buy stock in PM. My conscience is clean. It vaguely reminds me of the 'I think abortion is wrong but I support a womans right to choose.' I'm glad I don't have to morally balance something I think is morally wrong and choice, its got to be difficult. Tobacco companies are evil and sell poison to people but we will help one out for market dominance so we can feel good about a baby step to some sort of regulation. Either the thought process is just completely alien, where you can compartmentalize your logic, or its talking out of both sides of their mouths. I think I know the answer. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 04-25-2008 at 10:17 AM..