|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 14 2018 05:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I know quite a few people who I can consider theyre abusing their parenting skills. I'm talking about a 5 year old weighing as much as 100 pounds... That I technically consider child abuse, oh your child is crying so you feed them constantly so they don't cry.... Now your child has health issues because he/she is so fat and unhealthy - I definitely can consider that child abuse.
Maybe, but the best way to deal with something like that is education and options, not force. Besides the myriad of ethical problems, there are also the practical problems. What are you going to do with all those children that you take away from their parents?
I will not repeat all the ethical problems with this orwellian nightmare scenario either. Instead of the stasi taking away your children if you don't educate them in the correct way that the party describes, just give them a free, healthy lunch at school. Have cooking classes. You can even combine the two and have them cook their own meal.
Put a tax on softdrinks and shit like that to finance the school food. The best way to deal with vices is to make them expensive. It is pretty effective with regards to smoking and alcohol, and it shortcuts all the pitfalls of direct prohibition. And if coke costs double, suddenly juice or water look like a much better choice.
|
On February 14 2018 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 04:34 farvacola wrote:On February 14 2018 04:32 Lmui wrote:On February 14 2018 03:17 Grumbels wrote:On February 14 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 02:42 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
there's certainly some damage already being done; it's just hard to get politicians to do politically unpopular things. And this is far harder to do than it would be in europe, given the american cultural milieu.
Gettin kids to eat well starts with getting parents to eat well; a lot of people just eat poorly, and therefore, so do their kids.
mohdoo, what proposals do you favor for addressing these problems? In a general sense, I advocate for child protective services having significantly more power. Parents are given a somewhat executive power when it comes to raising their children. I think that is madness. Checks and balances should ultimately allow the state to play a much more active role in ensuring children are raised to a minimum standard and are given a minimum standard of health. If I can get even more comfortable explaining my unobtainable positions, I think having children should require a license in the same way we adopt children. We have already decided as a society that adopting a child should not be easy. But we let people just blast kids out their ass so long as they were the ones to create them. It makes no sense.Overall, we should feel more obligation to children. We should be doing more to make sure humans are given a fair shot at life and are not tragically hindered by shitty parents. Poor parenting is costing us a lottttttttttttt of money every year. This is some dystopian hand maiden’s tale in reverse shit. The key to true reform and durable progress is to not design systems that can easily be abused. If people want to address child abuse, focus on the children, not some misguided system to prevent potential bad parents from having kids. Why should it be easier to have children biologically than to adopt? Did your parents ever have “the talk” with you?  Children come from sex, which can’t be made illegal as it is private behavior. See: Teenage Pregnancy. Better education is really the only solution. Investing in children from an early age to ensure they have the ability to make the best possible decisions/be socially responsible, regardless of their parents is where my vote is going. This sums up my take for the most part. The best solution to every conceivable "bad parenting" problem, taking into account all of the moral hazards present in every direction, is to support robust public institutions of learning that children are guaranteed access to as early in their lives as possible. How does this go on to solve childhood obesity? Let's say a parent goes to Walmart and fills their cart with Totinos pizza. How is that impact of that mitigated? Then teach the kid to be healthy and try to teach the parent too. Taking the kid away isn’t going to solve your problems, it will make more problems. More problems than developing diet-induced diabetes as a young age? Dying when they are 50 because they have the heart of a 90 year old? I think you are underappreciating the impacts of child obesity.
Sure it's a problem.
You can't legislate what adults feed themselves though - encouraging healthier options via taxes etc. can work but there's no simple fix to this issue.
What you can do is encourage kids to eat healthy through lunch programs at school, providing healthy options for snacks/lunch etc. Peer pressure is an insanely strong tool for kids from 5-10 years old. If their peers/friends are eating/enjoying healthy food, they will join in.
|
On February 14 2018 06:29 Doodsmack wrote:
I am shocked!!!!!!
|
They also said that they believe the Russians will try again and their has been little cost to them since 2016. Not a glowing report at all.
|
Of course they will try again. They did the same thing in 2008 and 2012. Its just that its easier every time around because the internet is less free and more curated pay for views. Forums like this are on the decline while Reddit and Twitter and Facebook are stronger than ever, etc.
|
And of course facing this serious problem of a foreign government attempting to undermine our democratic process, Congress is passing laws and regulations that will limit their ability to do so….
Oh wait, that isn’t happening at all and won’t because the party in power is way to interested in reaping the rewards from the last time and hoping it works out in their favor again.
Or cynically, they hope to undermine whatever gains the Democrats make by saying the elections were rigged. Then they can double back in 2020. Forget faith in democracy, what we need is more tax cuts and ending Medicaid.
|
So long as the voting machines are kept safe, and there are measures being taken there, then that is all they should do. You can't write a law that says, "make better algorithms". First of all, its unconstitutional, and second of all, its a law requiring a technological innovation, which is like legislating flying cars.
|
On February 14 2018 07:15 cLutZ wrote:
So long as the voting machines are kept safe, and there are measures being taken there, then that is all they should do. You can't write a law that says, "make better algorithms". First of all, its unconstitutional, and second of all, its a law requiring a technological innovation, which is like legislating flying cars.
You can sanction the fuck out of them and then make sure the person at the top doesn't just throw them away
|
On February 14 2018 07:15 cLutZ wrote:
So long as the voting machines are kept safe, and there are measures being taken there, then that is all they should do. You can't write a law that says, "make better algorithms". First of all, its unconstitutional, and second of all, its a law requiring a technological innovation, which is like legislating flying cars.
How about:
Political ads on the internet must meet the same requirements as TV ads, right down to the paper records in each state. For transparency reasons and because the internet isn’t special. We don't even need to change that much, just make everyone play by the same rule set.
Bet that law would be super effective and solving this problem.
|
We have regulatory framework requiring technological innovation within environmental laws. Its doable, its usually a process of work towards Y(and prove your doing so) and we wont do X or we will allow Z. The laws themselves might not require innovation but the exemptions provided by EPA do.
|
On February 14 2018 07:16 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 07:15 cLutZ wrote:
So long as the voting machines are kept safe, and there are measures being taken there, then that is all they should do. You can't write a law that says, "make better algorithms". First of all, its unconstitutional, and second of all, its a law requiring a technological innovation, which is like legislating flying cars. You can sanction the fuck out of them and then make sure the person at the top doesn't just throw them away
Not really effective compared to having an operational European Interceptor Site (cancelled 2009), or not having cancelled phase 4 of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (2013). It would be a useful threat to threaten to rebuild those. The issue is that John McCain and the usual suspects think that is a brilliant idea, so it probably is not.
We are not in a strategically good position vis a vis Russia right now because we have to take major, affirmative steps to retake positions we used to hold, but also have a war weary public and need Russian cooperation in the MidEast, particularly since the Arab Spring took out a lot of our allies/destabilized neutral dictators.
On February 14 2018 07:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 07:15 cLutZ wrote:
So long as the voting machines are kept safe, and there are measures being taken there, then that is all they should do. You can't write a law that says, "make better algorithms". First of all, its unconstitutional, and second of all, its a law requiring a technological innovation, which is like legislating flying cars. How about: Political ads on the internet must meet the same requirements as TV ads, right down to the paper records in each state. For transparency reasons and because the internet isn’t special. We don't even need to change that much, just make everyone play by the same rule set. Bet that law would be super effective and solving this problem.
Not really a fan of those laws either TBH. Also I don't think that there is actually a good line between what is a political ad or not, which is why I prefer the government to be hands off of such things. Also, I prefer the government not run ads of its own.
|
Huge fan of laws that requires any group buying political ads to state for public record who they are and who they represent. If people want to make political statements, perfect. Just sign your name on the dotted line and you can buy a political ad on this TV show. Anyone unwilling to put down their information can just vote like the rest of us and let the people willing to sign use the platform of publication and TV.
Faith in our democratic process is the most important part of our elections. We need assurances that straight up lies won’t be used deceive voters. And if it is used, we need a clear way to punish those responsible if they did it intentionally. Because once the votes are cast, we can’t take back the election.
|
United States24328 Posts
I for one think Russian ads didn't do much of squat. They were like .1% of just the campaigns internet advertising budgets. They were neither prevalent or effective.
As far as improperly altering voter roles, it was Democrats in New York that did that, not Russian hackers. Then you have Ohio for Republicans and Arizona where it was apparently a ghost.
If we want to restore faith in our elections we need to start with the idiots running them not faceless Russians.
|
On February 14 2018 03:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:29 Kickboxer wrote:
You guys want the state to have invasive power over the way people raise their children? Your children? Have you thought this one through? It seems like an absolutely insane idea.
The license-to-kids one isn't bad, though ^__^ as long as an AI decides what the rules are. People who clearly don't want children shouldn't have them. It makes no sense.
We already have "measures" against eating crap & not taking care of your body btw. It's called being fat. If that doesn't motivate people, I don't know what will. Look at obesity numbers and tell me that 'being fat' is working as a deterrent.
Nationalize the food industry.
|
|
|
United States24328 Posts
On February 14 2018 09:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:33 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2018 03:29 Kickboxer wrote:
You guys want the state to have invasive power over the way people raise their children? Your children? Have you thought this one through? It seems like an absolutely insane idea.
The license-to-kids one isn't bad, though ^__^ as long as an AI decides what the rules are. People who clearly don't want children shouldn't have them. It makes no sense.
We already have "measures" against eating crap & not taking care of your body btw. It's called being fat. If that doesn't motivate people, I don't know what will. Look at obesity numbers and tell me that 'being fat' is working as a deterrent. Nationalize the food industry.
Yes this^
It happens across the country: 76% of America's school districts have kids with school lunch debt, according to the School Nutrition Association. The horror stories keep coming. In 2015, a Colorado cafeteria worker says she was fired for personally paying for a first grader's meal. Last year, a Pennsylvania lunch lady quit in protest after being forced to take food away from a student who was $25 in debt.
Source
|
On February 14 2018 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one think Russian ads didn't do much of squat. They were like .1% of just the campaigns internet advertising budgets. They were neither prevalent or effective.
As far as improperly altering voter roles, it was Democrats in New York that did that, not Russian hackers. Then you have Ohio for Republicans and Arizona where it was apparently a ghost.
If we want to restore faith in our elections we need to start with the idiots running them not faceless Russians.
They were not prevalent but they were microtargeted. The same psychological-warfare style microtargeting is used in dictator countries and repressive countries that have elections, to influence public opinion. The US used it in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the company that did that, iirc was purchased by the Mercers' company, or partnered with them for the 2016 election. The microtargeting occurred in places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. That's what the Mercers did anyway, not sure where the Russians targeted but the whole idea is to influence individual people or very small groups of people.
|
On February 14 2018 09:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 03:33 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2018 03:29 Kickboxer wrote:
You guys want the state to have invasive power over the way people raise their children? Your children? Have you thought this one through? It seems like an absolutely insane idea.
The license-to-kids one isn't bad, though ^__^ as long as an AI decides what the rules are. People who clearly don't want children shouldn't have them. It makes no sense.
We already have "measures" against eating crap & not taking care of your body btw. It's called being fat. If that doesn't motivate people, I don't know what will. Look at obesity numbers and tell me that 'being fat' is working as a deterrent. Nationalize the food industry.
Keep that shit in Venezuela.
|
On February 14 2018 09:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 09:14 Nebuchad wrote:On February 14 2018 03:33 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2018 03:29 Kickboxer wrote:
You guys want the state to have invasive power over the way people raise their children? Your children? Have you thought this one through? It seems like an absolutely insane idea.
The license-to-kids one isn't bad, though ^__^ as long as an AI decides what the rules are. People who clearly don't want children shouldn't have them. It makes no sense.
We already have "measures" against eating crap & not taking care of your body btw. It's called being fat. If that doesn't motivate people, I don't know what will. Look at obesity numbers and tell me that 'being fat' is working as a deterrent. Nationalize the food industry. Keep that shit in Venezuela.
His alternative was the state being involved in parenting.
I imagine yours is doing nothing.
With yours you can make that argument, with his, not so much.
|
United States24328 Posts
On February 14 2018 09:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one think Russian ads didn't do much of squat. They were like .1% of just the campaigns internet advertising budgets. They were neither prevalent or effective.
As far as improperly altering voter roles, it was Democrats in New York that did that, not Russian hackers. Then you have Ohio for Republicans and Arizona where it was apparently a ghost.
If we want to restore faith in our elections we need to start with the idiots running them not faceless Russians. They were not prevalent but they were microtargeted. The same psychological-warfare style microtargeting is used in dictator countries and repressive countries that have elections, to influence public opinion. The US used it in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the company that did that, iirc was purchased by the Mercers' company, or partnered with them for the 2016 election. The microtargeting occurred in places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. That's what the Mercers did anyway, not sure where the Russians targeted but the whole idea is to influence individual people or very small groups of people.
So?
I haven't seen any examples of any ad that would either be effective at changing voting preference or significantly impacting turnout. Usually the best ad examples that can be found are just poorly phrased versions of ads/ideas that have long been a part of the discourse. Of all the Russia meddling memes the whole "but the ads!?!" is the least serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
