Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Why Republicans had to change on Gay Marraige--Immigration next? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Why Republicans had to change on Gay Marraige--Immigration next?
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The political math is a no brainer.

3% to 3.5% of voters are gay, and not all of them are wanting to get married. 35% to 65% (depending on who's numbers you use) of voters are Evangelical Christians.

You sacrifice the 3% to gain the active 30%. That is how you win elections. This is the math that the Republican Politicos use. This is the math that the Democrat Politicos use. President Clinton used it when he signed DOMA. President Obama used it during his first election.

But a strange thing happened as more and more gays came out of the closet. Unlike other minorities, they did not all go into the same ghetto. Sure Key West and San Francisco and other towns or parts of towns did become centers where homosexuals concentrated. Like anyone, they wanted to be with people like themselves, and politically it is a good idea. Instead of being 3% of a large population, they became 30% of a smaller population, and elected their candidates.

The down side to being a minority district is that while you have some clout in your area, you have less clout in the nation as a whole. Gay problems were the problems of San Francisco, not Duluth.

As more and more of that 3% came out of the closet, a new thing happened. They had made friends with non-gay people. Soon everyone knew a gay person, had a gay friend, went to school with, had in the family, was good friends with a gay person--and that gay person was nothing like the monsters, the conniving dangers, the evil anti-home and hearth villains being described by the Evangelicals and their politicians.

Once every one of that 3% had 10 or more family and friends who backed them, that 3% became 30%, and much of that 30% was taken from the Evangelicals.

There is little chance that granting Marriage Rights to homosexuals will win 1 gay vote to the Republican party. But denying that right is costing them many votes from the friends and family of those seeking marriage.

Its this, say 30%, that the Republicans can win back if they simply find another culture war to fight. How they back out of this one with honor is the difficult point.

My questions is, can t his tactic be repeated. There are millions of illegal workers in this country, but they are all separated from society. They hide to save from being departed, and have massive walls of language and culture that separate them from those without a Latino heritage. Would it be possible for the illegal immigrants, the undocumented workers, to find a way to make friends with folks in this country, to show by example that they are not the dangerous, drug-running, lazy, dirty villains that Republican Reactionaries make them out to be?

Republicans do not want to create a path to citizenship for millions of Democratic voters-to-be, and there is little for them to win in doing so. Perhaps if they had something to lose, like the votes of millions of friends of Undocumented Workers, they would be motivated to help.

Posts: 1867 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They already do, the attitudes present vis a vis illegal immigrants has widely affected legal immigrants and their extended families. Many Latino Americans feel that the Republican Party simply doesn't want them in the country, the GOP has effectively lost 2-3 generations of Latino's.

Nominating a Latino or sending "representatives" to Latino communities as weak efforts of "outreach" while not at all formulating policies or appealing to their core interests will not at all help the GOP regain the demographic for many yeas.

Posts: 12519 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
The political math is a no brainer.

3% to 3.5% of voters are gay, and not all of them are wanting to get married. 35% to 65% (depending on who's numbers you use) of voters are Evangelical Christians.

Of the population. Not of voters. Maybe. Although I would find those numbers dubious (the Evangelical part).

Anyway, evangelicals obviously vote in stronger numbers in certain states- the picture of evangelicals versus single-issue gay voters is going to be fraught with problems. Gays are evenly dispersed at birth, and cluster in population later on. Evangelicals are clustered at birth, and remain so.

quote:
There is little chance that granting Marriage Rights to homosexuals will win 1 gay vote to the Republican party
Why? My uncle was a hard-core Republican, a congressional staffer in California for a Republican, who only re-registered as an independent because of the party's stance on gay rights. It turns out, he is gay.


ETA: On a completely personal note, while my uncle was too ethically and morally stringent as a person to subject any women to sham relationships or marriages (thankfully for him), he blames his many years of denial and hiding from his orientation partly on his Catholic upbringing, and partly on his own politics. It wasn't ok to be gay in the professional circles he was in, and it wasn't ok to be gay and be a Republican. That's sad, really. For him, and for Republicanism.

Posts: 9655 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Often times I have listened to conservative pundits and the publications of the most influential conservative think tanks really talk up the 'native conservatism' of our latin american immigrants due to elements like their staunch catholicism.

It is like they sincerely did not believe that their reliable antipathy to immigrant and nonassimilationist cultures (to say nothing of the chronic defunding of systems that protect low income families, which first and second generation immigrants tend to be, which keeps them stratified into low realms of the socioeconomic ladder) was going to reliably turn immigrants liberal, with stronger and stronger tendencies as you went forward through the immigrant generations.

Compound that with the fact that the Republican party is most pronouncably visible to latinos as the very "we don't like your type" party — when problematic and downright racist elements like the freaking Minutemen show up in force as conservative elements, they either get support from conservative pols or a big resounding refusal to deal with or reject the problematic elements.

And lo, this is why we're talking about this in an era in which I can't remind people enough that the Republican party has lost out essentially permanently on this front. It's over. This can't be covered for by them.

Posts: 14230 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I don't think it's that dire. It's not like Western Mormons didn't find a way to be Republican even if Evangelicals couldn't stand them.

The Republican party has Latinos in its ranks ala Marco Rubio, and it's not like they couldn't use the classic, "You guys are welcome here, but do you want all these new immigrants competing with you for jobs?" line of reasoning to shore up support. As cynical as that would be.

The best thing for the Republican party would be about 8-12 years of Democratic dominance in politics, that way people can see all the kinks in the Democratic Party, and the Republican party can form itself around those weaknesses. Right now their strategy of hamstringing the Democrats and then acting like the government's failure to act is indicative of the problems inherent in government hasn't yielded fruit. It would be much better if they took a breather, and let the Democrats write their playbook for them.

Posts: 14278 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the Republican political math on same-sex marriage may not be quite so clear with the current situation in their party. If they attempt to embrace gay marriage, they will lose a large percentage of Evangelical votes as well as experience a backlash within their own primaries, nominating even more unelectable candidates. If they choose to remain hard-line against gay marriage, they will lose more general election votes. There is no clear political exit strategy for them.

To simplify their political math, the best thing that could happen for Republicans would be a sweeping decision by SCOTUS to legalize gay marriage nationwide. It's in their best interest to have the fight removed from the political sphere.

Anything less, which sadly seems likely--like repealing DOMA and invalidating Prop 8 in a way that can only apply to CA, or rejecting one or both cases on standing without reaching the merits--will leave our nation to continue the current state-by-state battle that is widening the fracture in the Republican party. If that battle is left to continue, Republicans will pull themselves apart faster than if the gay marriage fight is taken off the table.

Politically, gay marriage seems a lose-lose for Republicans, no matter how they try to play it.

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh, I don't think it's that dire.
quote:
The Republican party has Latinos in its ranks ala Marco Rubio
These two statements are at odds with each other.

Additionally, if you are credibly arguing that the present situation entails that the best thing that could happen for the Republican party is a decade of failure that leaves the opposition essentially unopposed, how is this not supposed to be considered an extremely dire situation for them?

They're screwed. Whether or not what comes out of the ashes retains the name "Republican," it won't be the same party. Its present incarnation is doomed.

Some of them have been more or less staring the reality of this in the face long enough to try to start a war on the 14th amendment in the hopes of saving themselves. Remember "terror babies?"

Posts: 14230 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anthonie:
Politically, gay marriage seems a lose-lose for Republicans, no matter how they try to play it.

At this point I don't even mind what they try to do to keep up the whole utterly terminal farce that has been their cultural opposition to gay marriage. I most particularly enjoy watching people blow a gasket over increasingly more and more astoundingly trivial things. Like people who have a fundamental opposition based on, of all things, language concerns. Like "b b but marriage is between a man and a woman! that's what the word meeeans. you can't tell me that language evolves, telling me that same sex couples can marry is claiming the word for yourself and denying it from meeeeeeeeeeeee"

There is really just nothing more awesomely pathetic.

Posts: 14230 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:



The best thing for the Republican party would be about 8-12 years of Democratic dominance in politics, that way people can see all the kinks in the Democratic Party, and the Republican party can form itself around those weaknesses. Right now their strategy of hamstringing the Democrats and then acting like the government's failure to act is indicative of the problems inherent in government hasn't yielded fruit. It would be much better if they took a breather, and let the Democrats write their playbook for them.

I think they're afraid that, if they just let go, they'll never get control back again. Maybe.

I also think that the Iraq War, Halliburton nonsense, and all the other related messes have made Americans afraid of what happens when you let Big Oil and the military-industrial complex have free reign. We were still in Iraq up until a couple years ago. I think the pendulum swing is going to take longer than that.

Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

The best thing for the Republican party would be about 8-12 years of Democratic dominance in politics, that way people can see all the kinks in the Democratic Party, and the Republican party can form itself around those weaknesses. Right now their strategy of hamstringing the Democrats and then acting like the government's failure to act is indicative of the problems inherent in government hasn't yielded fruit. It would be much better if they took a breather, and let the Democrats write their playbook for them.

Funny, I've been saying the exact same thing about the Republicans for years. But then, they did, to a degree, and it worked beautifully. Republicans were in charge for six whole uninterrupted years with total control of the government and comparatively little in the way of Democratic obstruction, and they got tossed out in 2006 and 2008.

Now if the GOP would grow up and govern, we might actually see how the system is supposed to work. If not for the damage that would be done, I'd almost like to see Republicans have control of the whole gov't again with their "new" ideas just to see how badly they messed it up so Dems could win again, but it wouldn't matter with the new Scorched Earth policy of the GOP.

As to the OP, I think you have it backwards. Republicans were tripping over themselves in December to come up with new immigration plans because Romney's was terrible and as McCain said flat out, they have to change their immigration policy if they want to win elections. Democracy in action! But as for gay marriage? Only a handful of GOP politicians are on board. In fact, they're leading the charge against it, still! I think if you swapped the two issues in the OP, you'd be on board. They've already changed their song on immmigration, but demographics will force a shift in their position on gay marriage in a few years because the issue has so stunningly turned around in the general population. As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dan Savage recently said something particularly enlightening on the subject of why gay rights is moving so much faster than other civil rights groups have before. Gay people are not just a minority, they are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. They are literally living with the homophobic voters and politicians.

Unless a republican senator finds out that his daughter is secretly a latino and won't return his calls until he stops asking her to stop being a latino... the gay rights fight will keep having an accelerated advancement.

Posts: 2297 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
Gay people are not just a minority, they are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. They are literally living with the homophobic voters and politicians.

This is true. My step-grandfather cried hard when his gay grandson died of AIDS. I don't think there's a single non-white person on the planet whose death he would ever have mourned.
Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
Dan Savage recently said something particularly enlightening on the subject of why gay rights is moving so much faster than other civil rights groups have before. Gay people are not just a minority, they are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. They are literally living with the homophobic voters and politicians.

They also financially pretty well off more often than not.
Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us. We mostly intrude into their money.
Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
Liberals and Conservatives actually agree, by and large, on the principle of both intrusion and hands-off. The difference is in what things we think should qualify. Conservatives thing we should take people's money to pay for a massive military, should decide who they can marry, who they can have sex with, what they're allowed to smoke, etc. etc. Liberals think the government shouldn't be involved in those aspects of our lives, and that the military should be scaled way, way down.

But Liberals think we should take people's money to pay for schools, health care and other social programs. And that the "right to bear arms" means something a little less destructive, and also that it's not a suicide pact. We also see the destructive power of an unbridled free market, and seek to put reasonable restraints on it for the benefit of all.

So both sides are okay with the mechanisms, we just disagree on how to apply them. Young people pretty much universally agree that the government shouldn't be telling us who to marry and what to put in our bodies. You would think that's a Conservative principle, but Conservatives are the ones we're fighting against.

Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us. We mostly intrude into their money.
It's interesting that you separate "lives" and "money" when justifying government intrusion. Money, despite one's wishes to the contrary, is a very big part of life.
Posts: 542 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A libertarian fever dream where liberals banned salt consumption.
Posts: 698 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
I don't think his point is completely without merit. There have definitely been serious pushes for taxes on plastic bags, banning McDonalds Happy Meals, banning Big Gulps in New York, and virtually all buildings, including bars do not permit smoking, you have to go to special designated rooms.

Salt, I'm not sure where that is coming from, but you can bet that if it was in vogue to hate on Salt, liberals would find a way to get it out of society to some degree.

Posts: 14278 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
They're just about all either against the law or the attempt was made and overturned, yeah.

I live in the SF Bay Area. Some of those are, in fact, somewhat local, though not all of them.

In several counties around here, plastic grocery bags are illegal (and paper bags now come with a government mandated charge). San Francisco proper tried to ban happy meals, but I think that got overturned.

New York was the place that had ban-happy leftists try to ban salt in restaurants. To go alongside the large soda ban, I guess. You can look it up and everything, Parkour! I mean, are you cutting them slack for their ideals because they failed to enact them? Do Republicans only count as opposed to gay marriage if they successfully ban it?

Also, for fun, I'll throw in a freebie: LA has banned bacon-wrapped hot dogs.

Riding in a car without a seatbelt is federal, isn't it? I can't recall if smoking is or not. Can you open a smoker-friendly bar in some parts of the country?

I guess high fructose corn syrup is the only one not against the law, and without any recent legislative attempts made against it. But there are lots of groups who'd like to! Where do you expect they fall in the political spectrum?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't believe liberals have tried to ban salt, no. and if some did, it will be more of a fringe than conservatives who have tried to do things recently that beat the pants off of that in terms of invasions of personal autonomy.

your choice: liberals that "ban salt" or conservatives that try to make christianity the state religion so they can work on banning extramarital and homosexual sex again. which one is worse i wonder?

Posts: 698 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know what you want me to say, man. It's not terribly fringe. They've banned trans-fats and large sodas. There are members of the NYC assembly that also want to ban salt in restaurant cooking.

That's not the same thing as banning all salt in the city or anything. But it's still pretty bad.

But yeah those evil Republicans are theocrats, totally. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
They're just about all either against the law or the attempt was made and overturned, yeah.

I live in the SF Bay Area. Some of those are, in fact, somewhat local, though not all of them.

In several counties around here, plastic grocery bags are illegal (and paper bags now come with a government mandated charge). San Francisco proper tried to ban happy meals, but I think that got overturned.

New York was the place that had ban-happy leftists try to ban salt in restaurants. To go alongside the large soda ban, I guess. You can look it up and everything, Parkour! I mean, are you cutting them slack for their ideals because they failed to enact them? Do Republicans only count as opposed to gay marriage if they successfully ban it?

Also, for fun, I'll throw in a freebie: LA has banned bacon-wrapped hot dogs.

Riding in a car without a seatbelt is federal, isn't it? I can't recall if smoking is or not. Can you open a smoker-friendly bar in some parts of the country?

I guess high fructose corn syrup is the only one not against the law, and without any recent legislative attempts made against it. But there are lots of groups who'd like to! Where do you expect they fall in the political spectrum?

There is no federal law requiring you to wear a seat belt. It's a state level law.

There is no federal law banning smoking. It's a state level law.

As for all the other stuff you mentioned, none of it is banned around here. And none of it is banned back where I'm from.

I don't think it's necessary to ban salt, but high sodium content in food costs this nation tens of billions of dollars a year in higher health care costs. And Happy Meals are just one example of the problem of childhood obesity. I don't think that means we need to outright ban either of them, though. I also don't have a problem with taxing plastic grocery bags. Sin taxes are a time-honored practice in this country going back to literally its very first hours.

My general theory is that I'm generally not in favor of any laws that restrict your actions so long as your actions can ONLY harm YOU. When your actions can harm ME, then you're fair game.

Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I don't know what you want me to say, man. It's not terribly fringe. They've banned trans-fats and large sodas. There are members of the NYC assembly that also want to ban salt in restaurant cooking.

That's not the same thing as banning all salt in the city or anything. But it's still pretty bad.

But yeah those evil Republicans are theocrats, totally. [Roll Eyes]

Dan, sometimes I agree with you, but...have you been out on the street in SF smoking crack?

Nobody will ever seriously try to ban all salt. It's a necessary nutrient. And who cares if it's banned during the cooking process? Add it at the table, if you want some. THAT'S pretty libertarian, controlling your own salt intake, instead of giving someone else power over it.

And trans-fats are nasty. We've harmed NO ONE by banning them. The same for those monstrous sugary drinks. Getting rid of the worse foods in our diet is a GOOD thing.

How come your libertarian ideals don't extend to your diet? ROFL

Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, by now I am absolutely positive I am not the only one who is pretty much absolutely positive by now that even though it was what was initially suggested, there has been no attempt to ban the consumption of salt by ~leftists~ and that this is more than a bit of hyperbole.

Either way you could take every single instance of the grotesque attempted violation of our inviolate Rand-granted salt rights (which at this point I expect is a single bill and/or rider which probably never made it up to vote and was doubtlessly not passed even with the help of a liberal majority) and you could counter with several instances of .. yes, republican theocratic engineering of much more profound intent and scope.

Hell, NC is doing that crap right now.

Posts: 14230 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
(which at this point I expect is a single bill and/or rider which probably never made it up to vote and was doubtlessly not passed even with the help of a liberal majority)

You say that as if I presented it as something else. Of course it was a single bill. And yeah, it didn't pass. Good god, how could something so specific be anything other than a specific bill?

I'm so confused. Kate said that leftists only want to intrude on your money, and not any other aspect of your life. I cited a bunch of examples of them wanting to intrude in other areas. What are you missing? On an individual level the plastic bag ban pisses me off way more than any of the food bans. But they're all illustrative of my only point, which is that Kate was completely wrong.

Anyone care to actually argue with me, or am I just going to get more pointless equivalence crap?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:

Anyone care to actually argue with me, or am I just going to get more pointless equivalence crap?

I posted. Was it not worth a response?
Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tried to argue with you too, did I not do a good enough job?

I can be contrary! I swear!

Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:

Anyone care to actually argue with me, or am I just going to get more pointless equivalence crap?

yeah I think you're mostly getting that these little things that you are talking about like "banning salt" aren't really indicative of any majority level liberal proposals in any state, but extremely much more ugently concerning violations of personal liberty continue to be worked on by republican state legislature and governors. It's like, we can sit here and go "oh my god my salts! my plastic bags!" while meanwhile yes north carolina is legitimately trying to make state religion a thing, deny women the right to abortions, suppress the votes of multiple demographics, try to restrict people from the ability to divorce. Or hell you can go over to walker-land and see entire cities having the democratic process overturned and have fiat appointments running things. Like literally nothing you have mentioned here is anything I can see being representative of something which shows that the liberals are the people I need to watch out for when it comes to ridiculous intrusions on personal rights.

BUT hey thanks for calling it "pointless equivalence crap" I am glad to know you value our input enough to handwave it away as that!!

Posts: 14230 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
"oh my god my salts!

Salts?!! Salts??1!! Not...my Epsom TOO!!
Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I tried to argue with you too, did I not do a good enough job?

You did a fine job, sorry for not responding sooner. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.

Are you just trolling me, or what? [Razz]
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
They're just about all either against the law or the attempt was made and overturned, yeah.

I live in the SF Bay Area. Some of those are, in fact, somewhat local, though not all of them.

In several counties around here, plastic grocery bags are illegal (and paper bags now come with a government mandated charge). San Francisco proper tried to ban happy meals, but I think that got overturned.

New York was the place that had ban-happy leftists try to ban salt in restaurants. To go alongside the large soda ban, I guess. You can look it up and everything, Parkour! I mean, are you cutting them slack for their ideals because they failed to enact them? Do Republicans only count as opposed to gay marriage if they successfully ban it?

Also, for fun, I'll throw in a freebie: LA has banned bacon-wrapped hot dogs.

Riding in a car without a seatbelt is federal, isn't it? I can't recall if smoking is or not. Can you open a smoker-friendly bar in some parts of the country?

I guess high fructose corn syrup is the only one not against the law, and without any recent legislative attempts made against it. But there are lots of groups who'd like to! Where do you expect they fall in the political spectrum?

There is no federal law requiring you to wear a seat belt. It's a state level law.

There is no federal law banning smoking. It's a state level law.

Fascinating corrections! Thanks. Not sure how that changes the content, though. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As for all the other stuff you mentioned, none of it is banned around here. And none of it is banned back where I'm from.

I don't think it's necessary to ban salt, but high sodium content in food costs this nation tens of billions of dollars a year in higher health care costs. And Happy Meals are just one example of the problem of childhood obesity. I don't think that means we need to outright ban either of them, though. I also don't have a problem with taxing plastic grocery bags. Sin taxes are a time-honored practice in this country going back to literally its very first hours.

My general theory is that I'm generally not in favor of any laws that restrict your actions so long as your actions can ONLY harm YOU. When your actions can harm ME, then you're fair game.

This policy sounds good in theory, but it's actually open to way too much interpretation. Here are two examples:

If you think that someone's diet is incurring health care costs that are therefore hurting you, you can use that to justify intruding into their life.

And if you think that someone getting gay married sets a negative example and harms the fabric of society, thus making life harder for you and your family, then you can use that to justify intruding into their life.

In practice, one has to be careful not to twist the meaning of what can "harm" you. Looking at things from a collective, rather than individual, perspective is one big way that this gets clouded (as in both of the examples above.) If you think someone is doing something stupid, it's important to use persuasion, not force.

And for the record, it's not a tax on plastic grocery bags. They are literally banned in one of the larger counties in the SF Bay Area. Grocery stores can't carry them. The sin tax is on paper bags. And neither of those make any sense whatsoever. Even from a wrongheaded, green environmentalist perspective they are completely ass-backwards and unhelpful.

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I don't know what you want me to say, man. It's not terribly fringe. They've banned trans-fats and large sodas. There are members of the NYC assembly that also want to ban salt in restaurant cooking.

That's not the same thing as banning all salt in the city or anything. But it's still pretty bad.

But yeah those evil Republicans are theocrats, totally. [Roll Eyes]

Dan, sometimes I agree with you, but...have you been out on the street in SF smoking crack?

Nobody will ever seriously try to ban all salt. It's a necessary nutrient. And who cares if it's banned during the cooking process? Add it at the table, if you want some. THAT'S pretty libertarian, controlling your own salt intake, instead of giving someone else power over it.

And trans-fats are nasty. We've harmed NO ONE by banning them. The same for those monstrous sugary drinks. Getting rid of the worse foods in our diet is a GOOD thing.

How come your libertarian ideals don't extend to your diet? ROFL

You're contorting.

Unsurprisingly, I think people should be allowed to cook with what they like, and buy what they like, etc. If you want someone to stop cooking with salt or trans-fat, persuade them. If you can't, leave them alone.

[ April 05, 2013, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like, to what extent? Would you be in favor of removing all food regulation / the FDA etc and just going full caveat emptor on a revolving door of food suppliers, dining establishments, etc?
Posts: 14230 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?
Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
(which at this point I expect is a single bill and/or rider which probably never made it up to vote and was doubtlessly not passed even with the help of a liberal majority)

You say that as if I presented it as something else. Of course it was a single bill. And yeah, it didn't pass. Good god, how could something so specific be anything other than a specific bill?

I'm so confused. Kate said that leftists only want to intrude on your money, and not any other aspect of your life. I cited a bunch of examples of them wanting to intrude in other areas. What are you missing? On an individual level the plastic bag ban pisses me off way more than any of the food bans. But they're all illustrative of my only point, which is that Kate was completely wrong.

Anyone care to actually argue with me, or am I just going to get more pointless equivalence crap?

Plastic bags don't harm just you. Smoking in public doesn't harm just the smoker. Liberals don't particularly care what you smoke in your own home - even it is pot. Nor do we care what you cook at home. Environmental laws are because, libertarian or not, the rest of us are using the same space that you want to trash.
Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...

Welcome to the 21st century industrialized developed nations.

This is pretty much the norm and thinking their is some atrocious infringement on your principles is just something that will hold you back and make you die young of heart disease.

It's the gov't's prerogative to tax things to encourage or discourage behavior, always has been and always will be.

e: Aside from salt, which is pretty cookie.

Posts: 12519 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?

I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?

I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Well, since you made such a big deal about mocking my diet recently, yes, I think I deserve an explanation. Either retract your libertarianism, or change your diet, or explain why you're OK with the inconsistency. That's fair, right?
Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For what it's worth, I don't understand it either. I would think the libertarian diet would be pretty much "eat whatever the hell you want."
Posts: 3272 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since Libertarians insist that the market is inherently self regulating and there is no need for regulations, laws, taxes and so on which will lead to the optimum result. (With the "Gilded Age" being apparently a result of too much government intervention...) It is fair to suggest that if you are a libertarian and this extends to government regulation of people's diets (through taxes and subsidies) than it is fair for you personally to uphold those principles and regulate your own diet.

If you cannot personally manage your own diet (maybe because of outside factors beyond your control HHHRM???) then how can corporations be expected to better regulate themselves? Its unreasonable to suggest that corporations are inherently more virtuous than individual people and thus not need to be held to a lower standard than you the individual.

Posts: 12519 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
From: Dan_Frank
This policy sounds good in theory, but it's actually open to way too much interpretation. Here are two examples:

If you think that someone's diet is incurring health care costs that are therefore hurting you, you can use that to justify intruding into their life.

And if you think that someone getting gay married sets a negative example and harms the fabric of society, thus making life harder for you and your family, then you can use that to justify intruding into their life.

In practice, one has to be careful not to twist the meaning of what can "harm" you. Looking at things from a collective, rather than individual, perspective is one big way that this gets clouded (as in both of the examples above.) If you think someone is doing something stupid, it's important to use persuasion, not force.

And for the record, it's not a tax on plastic grocery bags. They are literally banned in one of the larger counties in the SF Bay Area. Grocery stores can't carry them. The sin tax is on paper bags. And neither of those make any sense whatsoever. Even from a wrongheaded, green environmentalist perspective they are completely ass-backwards and unhelpful.

Dan I don't want you to feel dogpiled, so if you don't want to respond, I'll understand.

I guess I see a problem with the connection you tried to make there. There's actual documented evidence that poor decisions one person makes impacts the overall price of healthcare. So it's not a matter of personal opinion that someone's bad choice has a negative effect on the community. Gay marriage, however, is some amorphous ooky gooey FEELING that the gays are lurking out there ruining your marriage simply by existing. One is based on empirical evidence. One is feelings based.

Yes, I see your point, but this is where we introduce evidence into the equation. If you can PROVE that gay marriage has a negative impact worthy of banning, then show me the data. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard, do you?

And we DO use persuasion, it's called democracy. If people in SF don't like all these rules you're talking about, then they should vote for other city council members and get those ordinances overturned. The fact that that hasn't happened suggests not enough people care that much about it. But again, if you're doing something dangerous to my health and I can't persuade you to stop just by talking, then you really leave me no choice. I'm not sacrificing my health for your right to be a douche.

I'm iffy on the whole plastic bag thing. Studies show that if you use those canvas bags, it IS better for the environment than constantly creating plastic bags in terms of the sheer amount of oil necessary to create them, but also because of the huge, huge landfill problem they create. But you have to use those bags EVERY time for years in order for the environmental benefit to really take hold over the materials it takes to make the canvas bags. I'm not sure banning is necessary, but I don't have a problem with using a tax as a stick to get them to stop using them. And at that point, it DOES make environmental sense to switch.

Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a little funny reading "Even from a wrongheaded, green environmentalist perspective they are completely ass-backwards and unhelpful." Since it seems to imply there isn't a "right headed" green environmentalist perspective, so I don't think Dan has really read any of the previous arguments levied in these forums.
Posts: 12519 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sure he's aware of most of them though he might not be sympathetic to them.
Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?

I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Well, since you made such a big deal about mocking my diet recently, yes, I think I deserve an explanation. Either retract your libertarianism, or change your diet, or explain why you're OK with the inconsistency. That's fair, right?
Yeah, I still don't understand. Your diet is bizarre and mock worthy, but if someone tried to ban it I'd be right there with you saying such a thing was a violation of your rights. Is that what you needed to hear?

Or, yes: bizarre diet fads are also popular with many libertarians! Though not with me. Is that what you wanted?

Matt's pretty much got the right of my opinion on the matter.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?

I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Well, since you made such a big deal about mocking my diet recently, yes, I think I deserve an explanation. Either retract your libertarianism, or change your diet, or explain why you're OK with the inconsistency. That's fair, right?
Yeah, I still don't understand. Your diet is bizarre and mock worthy, but if someone tried to ban it I'd be right there with you saying such a thing was a violation of your rights. Is that what you needed to hear?

Or, yes: bizarre diet fads are also popular with many libertarians! Though not with me. Is that what you wanted?

Matt's pretty much got the right of my opinion on the matter.

Yes, Dan, I already knew your take on diet was shallow.
Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
From: Dan_Frank
This policy sounds good in theory, but it's actually open to way too much interpretation. Here are two examples:

If you think that someone's diet is incurring health care costs that are therefore hurting you, you can use that to justify intruding into their life.

And if you think that someone getting gay married sets a negative example and harms the fabric of society, thus making life harder for you and your family, then you can use that to justify intruding into their life.

In practice, one has to be careful not to twist the meaning of what can "harm" you. Looking at things from a collective, rather than individual, perspective is one big way that this gets clouded (as in both of the examples above.) If you think someone is doing something stupid, it's important to use persuasion, not force.

And for the record, it's not a tax on plastic grocery bags. They are literally banned in one of the larger counties in the SF Bay Area. Grocery stores can't carry them. The sin tax is on paper bags. And neither of those make any sense whatsoever. Even from a wrongheaded, green environmentalist perspective they are completely ass-backwards and unhelpful.

Dan I don't want you to feel dogpiled, so if you don't want to respond, I'll understand.

I guess I see a problem with the connection you tried to make there. There's actual documented evidence that poor decisions one person makes impacts the overall price of healthcare. So it's not a matter of personal opinion that someone's bad choice has a negative effect on the community. Gay marriage, however, is some amorphous ooky gooey FEELING that the gays are lurking out there ruining your marriage simply by existing. One is based on empirical evidence. One is feelings based.

Yes, I see your point, but this is where we introduce evidence into the equation. If you can PROVE that gay marriage has a negative impact worthy of banning, then show me the data. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard, do you?

And we DO use persuasion, it's called democracy. If people in SF don't like all these rules you're talking about, then they should vote for other city council members and get those ordinances overturned. The fact that that hasn't happened suggests not enough people care that much about it. But again, if you're doing something dangerous to my health and I can't persuade you to stop just by talking, then you really leave me no choice. I'm not sacrificing my health for your right to be a douche.

I'm iffy on the whole plastic bag thing. Studies show that if you use those canvas bags, it IS better for the environment than constantly creating plastic bags in terms of the sheer amount of oil necessary to create them, but also because of the huge, huge landfill problem they create. But you have to use those bags EVERY time for years in order for the environmental benefit to really take hold over the materials it takes to make the canvas bags. I'm not sure banning is necessary, but I don't have a problem with using a tax as a stick to get them to stop using them. And at that point, it DOES make environmental sense to switch.

Posting from phone so forgive errors please.

On the bag issue: doesn't this also ignore the energy cost in regularly washing those reusable bags? And if they aren't washed regularly they are a non-trivial health risk, according to studies I've seen. And what landfill issue are you referring to?

I'll respond to your other points later, they're good.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?

I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Well, since you made such a big deal about mocking my diet recently, yes, I think I deserve an explanation. Either retract your libertarianism, or change your diet, or explain why you're OK with the inconsistency. That's fair, right?
Yeah, I still don't understand. Your diet is bizarre and mock worthy, but if someone tried to ban it I'd be right there with you saying such a thing was a violation of your rights. Is that what you needed to hear?

Or, yes: bizarre diet fads are also popular with many libertarians! Though not with me. Is that what you wanted?

Matt's pretty much got the right of my opinion on the matter.

Yes, Dan, I already knew your take on diet was shallow.
Um. Okay? So I answered your question?

Also I'll totally retract my Libertarianism! I'm not actually a Libertarian, Steven.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't actually seen anything about washing reusable bags, could you point me in the direction of something on that? My guess would be that reusable bags still come out way ahead because the water and energy that goes into making plastic bags is so extreme and they're used in such incredible numbers.

And the landfill issue, of course, is that very few people recycle their plastic bags (and even the recycling process is energy and water intensive, it actually recovers very little usable product, it just keeps them out of landfills). Billions of plastic bags end up in one of two places: Landfills, where they sit for thousands of years because they don't degrade, where they eventually begin to emit toxic gases. The ocean, where they float for years before the sun slowly breaks them down, where fish eat them, and are in turn eaten by larger fish, and then eaten by us, so those chemicals end up in our food chain.

Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Okay? So I answered your question?

Also I'll totally retract my Libertarianism! I'm not actually a Libertarian, Steven.

Mmkay...I'm done torturing you, anyway, either way.
Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2