|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 11:26 IgnE wrote:
How about eyeglasses? Everyone who needs them should get free eyeglasses. Welcome to Europe. Where things you could only imagine actually exist. I find your question why such basic needs should be subject to competition, especially quality food, very important.
One reason i can see is that people value stuff that they pay for more than stuff they get for free. I can see this very often. My fiancee works at a place which provides free additional tutoring for primary school students from families which are socially underprivileged for some reason or another. There are obviously a limited amount of places for students available, and some of those that get access to one value it greatly. Others, however, do not. Their children constantly skip the lessons on a short notice for whatever stupid reason they currently come up with, which effectively means that the people providing the lesson just sit around, all the costs still happen, but the lesson is wasted. I am pretty sure that that would not be happening if they had to pay what these lessons actually cost the state.
Sadly, a lot of people seem to think that if something is free, it is worthless and can be wasted at will.
|
On May 12 2019 20:02 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:On May 12 2019 11:26 IgnE wrote:
How about eyeglasses? Everyone who needs them should get free eyeglasses. Welcome to Europe. Where things you could only imagine actually exist. I find your question why such basic needs should be subject to competition, especially quality food, very important. One reason i can see is that people value stuff that they pay for more than stuff they get for free. I can see this very often. My fiancee works at a place which provides free additional tutoring for primary school students from families which are socially underprivileged for some reason or another. There are obviously a limited amount of places for students available, and some of those that get access to one value it greatly. Others, however, do not. Their children constantly skip the lessons on a short notice for whatever stupid reason they currently come up with, which effectively means that the people providing the lesson just sit around, all the costs still happen, but the lesson is wasted. I am pretty sure that that would not be happening if they had to pay what these lessons actually cost the state. Sadly, a lot of people seem to think that if something is free, it is worthless and can be wasted at will.
Reminds me of a discussion I read on reddit about a republican complaining about paying taxes for public libraries along the lines of "I don't use it, so why should I have to pay for it?"
|
On May 12 2019 20:26 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 20:02 Simberto wrote:On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:On May 12 2019 11:26 IgnE wrote:
How about eyeglasses? Everyone who needs them should get free eyeglasses. Welcome to Europe. Where things you could only imagine actually exist. I find your question why such basic needs should be subject to competition, especially quality food, very important. One reason i can see is that people value stuff that they pay for more than stuff they get for free. I can see this very often. My fiancee works at a place which provides free additional tutoring for primary school students from families which are socially underprivileged for some reason or another. There are obviously a limited amount of places for students available, and some of those that get access to one value it greatly. Others, however, do not. Their children constantly skip the lessons on a short notice for whatever stupid reason they currently come up with, which effectively means that the people providing the lesson just sit around, all the costs still happen, but the lesson is wasted. I am pretty sure that that would not be happening if they had to pay what these lessons actually cost the state. Sadly, a lot of people seem to think that if something is free, it is worthless and can be wasted at will. Reminds me of a discussion I read on reddit about a republican complaining about paying taxes for public libraries along the lines of "I don't use it, so why should I have to pay for it?" Its a very American thing. The same argument is used against health insurance. "i'm healthy so why should I pay for someone else's sickness".
Me, me, me and fuck everyone else.
|
|
|
On May 11 2019 11:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Ben Shapiro getting eviscerated on BBC is a life highlight for me. Oh man + Show Spoiler +I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism" Today my wife noticed that her period pads went up in price, and they did it subtly. They used to charge $14 for a pack of 36, now its $14 for a pack 26. No more packs of 36 available which helped last her bi weekly flow. Let’s force women to spend more on something that should already be given for free.
Im reposting this because I think it’s relevant once again. For those that say “why do I have to pay”, imagine bleeding out of your ass every month for a week or two, and you can't help it, it just comes naturally for the rest of your life. It gets quite overwhelming, and if you can't empathize then you're part of the problem.
|
I can't believe this has gone as far as it has. I'm laughing over here because we're all talking past one another. Feminine hygiene products, like eyeglasses and food subsidies, should be accessible. End of story.
You pay social security and medicare but aren't guaranteed to have it when you retire. The women are living now, let's take care of them. And don't forget menopause cuts back the number of active tampon users (I didn't want to get into the doctor spiel...)...
|
On May 12 2019 21:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On May 12 2019 20:26 Gahlo wrote:On May 12 2019 20:02 Simberto wrote:On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:On May 12 2019 11:26 IgnE wrote:
How about eyeglasses? Everyone who needs them should get free eyeglasses. Welcome to Europe. Where things you could only imagine actually exist. I find your question why such basic needs should be subject to competition, especially quality food, very important. One reason i can see is that people value stuff that they pay for more than stuff they get for free. I can see this very often. My fiancee works at a place which provides free additional tutoring for primary school students from families which are socially underprivileged for some reason or another. There are obviously a limited amount of places for students available, and some of those that get access to one value it greatly. Others, however, do not. Their children constantly skip the lessons on a short notice for whatever stupid reason they currently come up with, which effectively means that the people providing the lesson just sit around, all the costs still happen, but the lesson is wasted. I am pretty sure that that would not be happening if they had to pay what these lessons actually cost the state. Sadly, a lot of people seem to think that if something is free, it is worthless and can be wasted at will. Reminds me of a discussion I read on reddit about a republican complaining about paying taxes for public libraries along the lines of "I don't use it, so why should I have to pay for it?" Its a very American thing. The same argument is used against health insurance. "i'm healthy so why should I pay for someone else's sickness". Me, me, me and fuck everyone else. The worst part of the healthcare argument is their government, so their tax dollars, are already paying just as much per capita as countries that have universal. Just they ALSO get to pay out of pocket and insurance coats.
Oh no. No, no, no.
Taxpayers pay significantly more than any other developed country for our healthcare. Socialized medicine is significantly cheaper than American medicine.
Then we still pay hundreds of dollars a month for health insurance, and then thousands of dollars per year before that health insurance kicks in.
|
On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:
The way you portrayed /I perceived your opinion via the last couple of posts of yours is rather questionable though. I am under the impression that you question giving out free period utility items because food, of which men in your words need more of than women, isn't free albeit being a super basic need.
His point is very simple, an argument that women should receive free tampons/pads because it is unequal/unfair that women have a higher cost of living than men requires showing than women actually do have a higher cost of living than men, which the need to buy tampons/pads does not prove because there are cost of living expenses other than tampons/pads.
|
On May 12 2019 22:07 ThaddeusK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:
The way you portrayed /I perceived your opinion via the last couple of posts of yours is rather questionable though. I am under the impression that you question giving out free period utility items because food, of which men in your words need more of than women, isn't free albeit being a super basic need.
His point is very simple, an argument that women should receive free tampons/pads because it is unequal/unfair that women have a higher cost of living than men requires showing than women actually do have a higher cost of living than men, which the need to buy tampons/pads does not prove because there are cost of living expenses other than tampons/pads.
His point remains unclear. And my question is as to why the argument is about weighing x vs y, man vs woman when it should be about why people are priced out of essential services
|
On May 12 2019 22:13 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 22:07 ThaddeusK wrote:On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:
The way you portrayed /I perceived your opinion via the last couple of posts of yours is rather questionable though. I am under the impression that you question giving out free period utility items because food, of which men in your words need more of than women, isn't free albeit being a super basic need.
His point is very simple, an argument that women should receive free tampons/pads because it is unequal/unfair that women have a higher cost of living than men requires showing than women actually do have a higher cost of living than men, which the need to buy tampons/pads does not prove because there are cost of living expenses other than tampons/pads. His point remains unclear. And my question is as to why the argument is about weighing x vs y, man vs woman when it should be about why people are priced out of essential services
Give us the bare minimum you would price essential services. I agree that hunger, tampons, and housing should not be a factor in today's world of abundance, but it is. What would be your absolute minimum threshold for those?
|
Norway28600 Posts
On May 11 2019 01:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 01:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Nope, but i also have a much more established relationship with him than what trump has with his rallygoers. I think it is much more problematic that trump himself says things that are significantly less bad/ slightly less bad than what this guy said than that he doesnt make some unequivocal 'the opinion stated by this fellow rally attendee is under no circumstance acceptable, even as a joke.' At this point, truth be told, trump could have made that statement, but i myself would probably not have considered it genuine.
I really dont intend this as a defense of trump, but i think if i spent some time, I'd be able to make a 50+ point list over more important reasons why he's a disgrace as a president . Consequently i dont consider this particular example particularly noteworthy or a big deal. What trump himself states is far more important than what fans of him say that he does not admonish , and this, to me, is even more so the case because i know that I am not too fond of or great at admonishing people i am sympathetic towards who express opinions i otherwise find wrong or offensive. You're right on both the hierarchy of criticizable actions and that people would disbelieve it regardless. I'll say it one more time: the people most wanting conservatives to condemn trivial actions (and he already said "It's only in the Panhandle you can get away with that statement" by means of condemnation for inappropriateness) are loading up fascist and white supremacist and vile rhetoric in their cannons and firing indiscriminately at conservatives already. There isn't really a step down that isn't unilateral surrender on rhetoric. The message has become "Take it, conservatives, because you deserve it, but don't you dare use the biggest microphone to throw it back!" Funny joke, guys. Drone, you could probably get my support on 20-30 of your 50 point list. I don't think he's a good president on a great number of metrics. I happen to value a small number of metrics very highly that he performs average or well on, and people don't like it, but that's politics. I'd really prefer somebody that can defend his policy positions, not blatantly lie, and give better speeches off the cuff, but in their absence, I'll still pick somebody whose appointments and policies will better the country. I suggest to you, Drone, that you would do the same if you truly thought the other guy would impoverish and hurt the country. Links: My past response to your AGW characterization, related on the words we use and manner of humorOrwell, showing fascism just means "something undesirable" and lost meaning back in the 1940s or earlier. The degradation of political taxonomy is quite old.
Sorry I haven't been responding to your replies, I've been too busy as of late to really engage in discussions, so I just drop off my comments / don't want to bring up week old discussions when I find myself having more time. But I'll give a quick reply to the climate change one: While probably not pedagogically sound, when dealing with people who do not acknowledge that humans contribute to climate change, I've largely given up trying to convince them, and I'm sure I'm guilty of ridiculing this group. However, I feel like you didn't get the main point of the post, because the main point is that you actually can be a believer in man made contributions to climate change without having to adopt the point of view that we must severely cut emissions. Then I listed several different varieties of alternative approaches - but these positions are not ones that I ridicule. Every single approach towards dealing with climate change has very problematic elements to it that make them not viable as a singular approach, however all of these (including 'I don't give a fuck about the consequences for life on earth in the future / in other regions of the world today so I'm just gonna keep on truckin') is preferable to the notion that 'it's not really happening'. The fact that large segments of the current republican party either is or pretends to be more ignorant about this than what the republican party was during the 80s is a disgrace and one of the many areas showcasing their intellectual dishonesty, imo, because it should not be possible for a genuinely intellectually curious person to conclude that human actions do not significantly contribute to the climate change we are currently experiencing and projected to experience far more of.
There are however many possible reasons to be skeptical of emissions cutting as a primary method of dealing with the issue, but almost all the voices that argue against emissions cutting seem to also argue against the concept of man made climate change. This ticks me off. You can compare it to say, us having an abortion debate, and rather than me arguing for the merits of abortion, I instead argue that children are not actually being aborted, every single instance of provoked abortion was actually a miscarriage that randomly happened to happen just as the person went to an abortion clinic. If that were my argument, I assume you would not take me seriously at all- rightfully so.
|
While i agree that something should be done, i'm not sure what people think could be done.
Yeah, you could argue that throwing tampons at bleeding women does it, but fact of the matter is, it doesn't. "Welfare" stuff is basic. It absolutely should be, too (not "bad", but basic).
I'm not sure if i want to shove some rough cotton balls up in there, because lets be clear, the "super deluxe softness expanding leakproof cork of goodness" won't ever be free. And, again, it shouldn't be.
I suppose subsidies like France does (test) it could work, but again, that covers basic stuff. And, here's one other thing that one might want to consider, because that's what is inevitably going to happen, 100%: it gives an argument to the people that "paygap" doesn't exist, because now men are paying for womens toiletries. And make no mistake, this will happen. And i'm not even entirely sure if in that case, it'd be wrong.
It also doesn't really fit with the "equality!" crowd, which is funny, considering they're the ones arguing for this the loudest. Keep in mind that it isn't an illness.
Again, not against it, just being realistic about it.
|
It doesn't seem that hard to assume that should be a basic healthcare benefit. Or at the least, maybe a slightly less deluxe version.
Outside of basic necessities though, it is true that paying for things makes you value them more. I have access to several friend's Steam libraries, but play those games way less than those I've bought with my own money, even including the many games my friends have which are on my wishlist. Paying for something yourself does a lot psychologically.
|
On May 12 2019 22:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 21:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2019 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On May 12 2019 20:26 Gahlo wrote:On May 12 2019 20:02 Simberto wrote:On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:On May 12 2019 11:26 IgnE wrote:
How about eyeglasses? Everyone who needs them should get free eyeglasses. Welcome to Europe. Where things you could only imagine actually exist. I find your question why such basic needs should be subject to competition, especially quality food, very important. One reason i can see is that people value stuff that they pay for more than stuff they get for free. I can see this very often. My fiancee works at a place which provides free additional tutoring for primary school students from families which are socially underprivileged for some reason or another. There are obviously a limited amount of places for students available, and some of those that get access to one value it greatly. Others, however, do not. Their children constantly skip the lessons on a short notice for whatever stupid reason they currently come up with, which effectively means that the people providing the lesson just sit around, all the costs still happen, but the lesson is wasted. I am pretty sure that that would not be happening if they had to pay what these lessons actually cost the state. Sadly, a lot of people seem to think that if something is free, it is worthless and can be wasted at will. Reminds me of a discussion I read on reddit about a republican complaining about paying taxes for public libraries along the lines of "I don't use it, so why should I have to pay for it?" Its a very American thing. The same argument is used against health insurance. "i'm healthy so why should I pay for someone else's sickness". Me, me, me and fuck everyone else. The worst part of the healthcare argument is their government, so their tax dollars, are already paying just as much per capita as countries that have universal. Just they ALSO get to pay out of pocket and insurance coats. Oh no. No, no, no. Taxpayers pay significantly more than any other developed country for our healthcare. Socialized medicine is significantly cheaper than American medicine. Then we still pay hundreds of dollars a month for health insurance, and then thousands of dollars per year before that health insurance kicks in.
Also you can't get an ambulance without coughing up $2k.
|
On May 12 2019 23:34 Tal wrote:
It doesn't seem that hard to assume that should be a basic healthcare benefit. Or at the least, maybe a slightly less deluxe version.
Outside of basic necessities though, it is true that paying for things makes you value them more. I have access to several friend's Steam libraries, but play those games way less than those I've bought with my own money, even including the many games my friends have which are on my wishlist. Paying for something yourself does a lot psychologically.
The solution is often to charge some for the service, but not necessarely the entire true cost of it. I read somewhere that this is also a things like handing out medication in underdeveloped countries.
As a musician, I have seen the horror of free concerts: the public often come late and walk away whenever they feel like it, who cares when it is completely free?
But charging the "true value" of healthcare is an even worse idea imo. The HC industry obviously wants to charge as much as possible, but there is nothing stopping them from overcharging horribly: what are you willing to pay for necessary treatment?
|
On May 12 2019 22:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 22:13 Artisreal wrote:On May 12 2019 22:07 ThaddeusK wrote:On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:
The way you portrayed /I perceived your opinion via the last couple of posts of yours is rather questionable though. I am under the impression that you question giving out free period utility items because food, of which men in your words need more of than women, isn't free albeit being a super basic need.
His point is very simple, an argument that women should receive free tampons/pads because it is unequal/unfair that women have a higher cost of living than men requires showing than women actually do have a higher cost of living than men, which the need to buy tampons/pads does not prove because there are cost of living expenses other than tampons/pads. His point remains unclear. And my question is as to why the argument is about weighing x vs y, man vs woman when it should be about why people are priced out of essential services Give us the bare minimum you would price essential services. I agree that hunger, tampons, and housing should not be a factor in today's world of abundance, but it is. What would be your absolute minimum threshold for those?
I really do not want to talk about individual items and prices because that's so far away from what my point is.
This whole thing started with period utiliites being ridiculously overpriced. Which is abundantly clear by the price talked about a couple of pages ago and them being availabe for 12% of that price (14$ to 1.5€) in a similarly developed country.
Just sarch for period poverty and be be aghast that this actually is a problem. And even a couple of quid make a difference. Not to you or to me, but to many American and UK residents.
Inge, in classical meninism fashion, diverts from the topic by saying various things akin to:
"but men have it worse, cause they have to pay more for food"
Not explicitly saying that period utilities shouldn't be cheaper, but through diverting the discussion to the apparently more important topic of why men are worse off than women, entirely disregards the former discussion and by that issue raised.
His supposed point, the question about affordability of good and healthy food, does go hand in hand with the general theme of period poverty - which is why it's not the smartest thing to value against, as they have a similar underlying issue. Disproportionate spread of wealth.
It is also very in line with current politics that when we talk about women's issues, the topic is diverted to an entirely different topic or someone shoults: BUT WE SHOULD INCLUDE MEN AS WELL.
Which is entirely correct, though this cannot prevent us from working on and solving a know and researched issue, just because it "only" affects women. It's ridiculous. You weigh and judge a problem that doesn't even concern you. Good on you. Not.
According to the logic inge displayed, people who forget their coats shouldn't get treatment for the cold they caught as others didn't forget their coat and are well. Great society, would want to live in 5/7 times.
The questions posed are all valid and I think have a merit all on their own, but not as a counterquestion to people discussion women's issues in an attempt to redirect the focus of the topic at hand to something different.
It is tedious, disingenuous and distracts from actually tackling real world problems.
Why is it so important to bring these questions up right the moment we're talking about women?
You would not have brought them up by yourself because they're dear to you, you bring them up to make posters here look like they're not caring about men as much as women or not thinking about the big picture. Though entirely disingenuous and seemingy not interested in any solution to the problem at hand.
|
I feel like we are reading entirely different threads, but I'll leave it to Igne to comment on your characterization of his argument.
|
I understand what you're talking about. I asked for the hypothetical prices to see if they would be inline with a lot of posters and the costs they would deem "fair" should everyone, like medicaid and social security, have to pay for it.
I agree that the point of the discussion you raised was to bring the awareness to period poverty and I think we got some good takes on that, with the majority of people on your side. I for one, feel as if Igne was being devil's advocate for this particular one. You have to have someone ask those kind of questions because they are out there. And we need to be able to argue why that line of thinking is asinine.
|
The thing is that I absolutely agree with the questions being asked - and that I made quite clear imo.
It's really about timing these questions in conjunction with a post about women. 100%. Nothing else.
It's not about devil's advocate. Instead of asking what about this other issue, you could easily add your point of people lacking access to food to the discussion withough diminishing the importance of the issues raised before.
That, in my perception, was severely lacking in the way Inge engaged.
|
On May 13 2019 01:50 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 22:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 12 2019 22:13 Artisreal wrote:On May 12 2019 22:07 ThaddeusK wrote:On May 12 2019 19:31 Artisreal wrote:
The way you portrayed /I perceived your opinion via the last couple of posts of yours is rather questionable though. I am under the impression that you question giving out free period utility items because food, of which men in your words need more of than women, isn't free albeit being a super basic need.
His point is very simple, an argument that women should receive free tampons/pads because it is unequal/unfair that women have a higher cost of living than men requires showing than women actually do have a higher cost of living than men, which the need to buy tampons/pads does not prove because there are cost of living expenses other than tampons/pads. His point remains unclear. And my question is as to why the argument is about weighing x vs y, man vs woman when it should be about why people are priced out of essential services Give us the bare minimum you would price essential services. I agree that hunger, tampons, and housing should not be a factor in today's world of abundance, but it is. What would be your absolute minimum threshold for those? I really do not want to talk about individual items and prices because that's so far away from what my point is. This whole thing started with period utiliites being ridiculously overpriced. Which is abundantly clear by the price talked about a couple of pages ago and them being availabe for 12% of that price (14$ to 1.5€) in a similarly developed country. Just sarch for period poverty and be be aghast that this actually is a problem. And even a couple of quid make a difference. Not to you or to me, but to many American and UK residents. Inge, in classical meninism fashion, diverts from the topic by saying various things akin to: "but men have it worse, cause they have to pay more for food" Not explicitly saying that period utilities shouldn't be cheaper, but through diverting the discussion to the apparently more important topic of why men are worse off than women, entirely disregards the former discussion and by that issue raised. His supposed point, the question about affordability of good and healthy food, does go hand in hand with the general theme of period poverty - which is why it's not the smartest thing to value against, as they have a similar underlying issue. Disproportionate spread of wealth. It is also very in line with current politics that when we talk about women's issues, the topic is diverted to an entirely different topic or someone shoults: BUT WE SHOULD INCLUDE MEN AS WELL. Which is entirely correct, though this cannot prevent us from working on and solving a know and researched issue, just because it "only" affects women. It's ridiculous. You weigh and judge a problem that doesn't even concern you. Good on you. Not. According to the logic inge displayed, people who forget their coats shouldn't get treatment for the cold they caught as others didn't forget their coat and are well. Great society, would want to live in 5/7 times. The questions posed are all valid and I think have a merit all on their own, but not as a counterquestion to people discussion women's issues in an attempt to redirect the focus of the topic at hand to something different. It is tedious, disingenuous and distracts from actually tackling real world problems. Why is it so important to bring these questions up right the moment we're talking about women? You would not have brought them up by yourself because they're dear to you, you bring them up to make posters here look like they're not caring about men as much as women or not thinking about the big picture. Though entirely disingenuous and seemingy not interested in any solution to the problem at hand.
Well no, you are being rather unfair. Money is fungible. You haven't demonstrated why tampons, in particular, should be free to everyone. I already said tampons should be accessible to the poor, like every other basic human need, but you continue to conflate me saying "free tampons for everyone doesn't really make much sense" with me saying "fuck anyone who can't pay for things they need." But at least you are virtue signalling as hard as you possibly can.
Asking "why are you choosing X over Y" is not whataboutism when the two are paid for with fungible tax dollars. You have to be able to justify your choice in the political arena. The #1 most annoying thing on this forum is people throwing out trendy words like whataboutism instead of considering the logical/rhetorical structure of the argument and actually thinking for themselves.
Like you realize that you seem to be taking the position that middle class and rich women should be getting a tampon subsidy over more redistribution to people with less money? No one taking your line of argument has explained why this should be. "It's a basic human right" doesn't cut it because that argument can be applied to a ton of shit and yet those things aren't being made free.
Why would you choose to distribute societal resources based on identity rather than need?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
