Morality

[Sigurd]

That is why so many European countries (and now America) are going bankrupt, look at the social programs. Social spending, no, you kill the will and motivation of your people because you take care of them.

Scandinavia throws a spear in your spokes.

[Vincent Butler]

I was thinking of countries like Greece. By the way, what do you pay in taxes?

[HoreTore]

I was thinking of countries like Greece. By the way, what do you pay in taxes?

36% income tax, 25% sales tax, plus some additional (smaller) ones based on behaviour.

...And Greece did not go bankrupt because of expanded government programs. Neither will the US. The countries who have gone downhill has done so because of a mismatch between revenue and expenses, plus financial shenanigans.

The welfare state arose in the biggest increase in general wealth the world has ever seen. It doesn't tank your economy. Further, the idea that social security destroys your desire to improve your standing is bullshit. The countries with the largest welfare states are also the countries with the largest social mobility. Countries with a small welfare state, like the US, have the social mobility of a third world country.

[Greyblades]

That is why so many European countries (and now America) are going bankrupt, look at the social programs. Social spending, no, you kill the will and motivation of your people because you take care of them.
Look, we might not exactly be booming right now, but we are not going bankrupt.

[a completely inoffensive name]

nvm, kad being silly.

[Husar]

Really, his teachings advocated a focus on the spiritual, on growth in one's connection to the Almighty, irregardless of one's pelf. He did seem to assert that fixating on the materialistic was an impediment to this, not that the existence of wealth was of itself an evil.

How many people do you know who became rich without having a fixation on money that was greater than their fixation on god?
Exactly, that's where the camel -> needle thing comes from.


But socialism is the government taking care of people, not people taking care of people. Study the Bible, the care of the poor is the responsibility of the church, not the government. That is why so many European countries (and now America) are going bankrupt, look at the social programs. Defense is important, to quote Sun Tsu, "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or ruin." Social spending, no, you kill the will and motivation of your people because you take care of them.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Is that how conservative christianity works in the US? If the Bible doesn't have a quote fitting your world view, just take Sun Tsu?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Kadagar_AV]

Kad, I am an atheist.

Complete brainfart, thought I was quoting TS.

I really have no defense for that one :bow:

Edited it, please do the same with your post, so people don't get confused reading it. You can of course edit it with "NVM, Kad being stupid".

[Vincent Butler]

Is that how conservative christianity works in the US? If the Bible doesn't have a quote fitting your world view, just take Sun Tsu?
Start another crusade, right?~;)

36% income tax, 25% sales tax, plus some additional (smaller) ones based on behaviour.
Don't know what behavior might affect your taxes, but you pay over half of your income in taxes. If you don't mind that, fine. At least you are getting what you pay for. I would rather have that money for other things, but to each his own.

Countries with a small welfare state, like the US, have the social mobility of a third world country.
Don't know about social mobility, I know we used to be very socially mobile, not so much now, but that is because of more socialist policies. When we were less socialist, we had greater mobility. Anyway, when more people rely on the federal government, how do they move up, unless your social mobility is all downward. With the socialist trend in America, more people are on foodstamps. Ronald Reagan said that the goal of the welfare state is to force itself out of existence. I guess that is the difference between Americans and Europeans.

The countries who have gone downhill has done so because of a mismatch between revenue and expenses, plus financial shenanigans
I agree with that statement, my point is that the mismatch is due to the social spending. Well, or other things, I guess you can attribute that to whatever part of the budget you want. From my conservative standpoint, it is the social programs. Reagan said that the best social program is a job. Democrats seem to want to cut the military part. That is why I brought up Sun Tsu, to emphasize the importance of a military. Countries have gotten along fine without socialism, but those without a military have been taken over or forced to rely on other countries, hence the creation of groups like NATO. A country, like, say, the Netherlands (I use them because I am half Dutch) could not really defend itself if say Russia or France attacked it. Well, maybe they could against France~D. NATO is very beneficial for countries in that situation, after all, what are allies for.

I am going to have to reduce my time on The Org, what with college starting I have more important things to focus on now, not to mention my Viking raids. Got to pay for school somehow. (I am descended from Vikings) I probably won't really respond but every now and then, so if I do, it will only be on the most recent posts. I did not expect this thread to get so controversial, but it was interesting.

[HopAlongBunny]

Some clarity might help.

US social spending is not all that much lower than most European countries

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/government-social-spending_20743904-table1

So you might want to quibble more about value for money, or need/allocation mismatch.

In fact, social spending is lower than it has been in the past; this lack of gov't investment in the populace has not lifted all boats...so what's up with that?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending

Unless you can show that somehow abolishing social spending will help everyone, it's kind of insane to wish to follow that policy.

[Ironside]

Start another crusade, right?~;)

Don't know what behavior might affect your taxes, but you pay over half of your income in taxes. If you don't mind that, fine. At least you are getting what you pay for. I would rather have that money for other things, but to each his own.

Don't know about social mobility, I know we used to be very socially mobile, not so much now, but that is because of more socialist policies. When we were less socialist, we had greater mobility. Anyway, when more people rely on the federal government, how do they move up, unless your social mobility is all downward. With the socialist trend in America, more people are on foodstamps. Ronald Reagan said that the goal of the welfare state is to force itself out of existence. I guess that is the difference between Americans and Europeans.

The US is lower on social mobillity (http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/eliasisquith/2012/01/is-social-mobility-overrated/) (source (http://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf)) than more socialist countries. The US is notable with the poor staying poor and the rich staying rich, while those in the middle moves more (http://mattbruenig.com/2012/07/14/us-social-mobility-in-one-chart/).

The socialist policies are there to keep people from getting stuck with a bad start (poor parents) or crashing down if they have bad luck with their jobs.
I think two misconceptions are common. One is that everyone will jump to abuse the system if they got the opportunity for it. It happens, but is quite rare, unless you've done a really poor system. For most people, it'll work as intended and be temporary.
The second is that if you push out unemployed people into extreme poverty, they will somehow create valid jobs out of desperation. According to that logic, there wouldn't be economic depressions. And poor countries would have high employment.

Add that many Americans haven't been poor, thus getting the wrong impression. Most poor people knows how to keep the costs down, simply by getting forced into it. It's not uncommon that winning a few millions wrecks them and places them in debt, because suddenly they spend more money that they earn and don't go back to the poor living habits when the money is spent.

That means that if you know how to save, you can afford that giant TV after a while. The richer guy don't know how to save, because he considers all his extra expenses as basic stuff. And he can never afford that giant TV, despite earning twice as much. And of course that proof that the poor guy is getting too much, not that the richer guy has excessive living expenses compared to what he earns.

[Papewaio]

Australia has a fairly robust economy despite social welfare.

Universal healthcare
Cheap university access (until the current government removes it)
Good (not great) unemployment benefits
Decent minimum wage

So I see a robust economy, greater opportunity to further oneself and a wage system that means the government isn't subsidizing the private sector.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But socialism is the government taking care of people, not people taking care of people.



Certainly, I would agree that the principles of helping each other, of justice and equality, are all central to Christianity. But it is quite a leap to suggest that a socialist system, with state ownership of the means of production, is somehow a true (or at least, Christian) manifestation of such principles. Human liberty is another core Christian value, and one that is hard to reconcile with a truly socialist system (if not so much, say, a more social democratic system).

The Catholic Church does a good job at articulating a Christian approach to politics in the form of Catholic social teaching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching). In terms of wealth/inequality/socialism etc, it has some interesting ideas. For example, distributism - the idea that every individual should privately own a portion of the means of production.

Governments are nothing but many people. I'm not advocating for a move from free market systems, I am saying that the Church needs to be present as a massive bleeding heart that's constantly asking the government how the poor and disadvantaged are surviving. Might be different in Europe from what HoreTore says, but in the US religion goes hand in hand with the right wing and right wing ideology just does not mix well with Christianity. The last 35 years have been one long string of television evangelicals bible thumping from McMansions they call super churches asking for the poor to sacrifice so that the "rights" of rich individuals are preserved.

Extreme individualism strips away the only beauty I see in religion, which is the duty towards community.




Don't know about social mobility, I know we used to be very socially mobile, not so much now, but that is because of more socialist policies. When we were less socialist, we had greater mobility. Anyway, when more people rely on the federal government, how do they move up, unless your social mobility is all downward. With the socialist trend in America, more people are on foodstamps. Ronald Reagan said that the goal of the welfare state is to force itself out of existence. I guess that is the difference between Americans and Europeans.

I agree with that statement, my point is that the mismatch is due to the social spending. Well, or other things, I guess you can attribute that to whatever part of the budget you want. From my conservative standpoint, it is the social programs. Reagan said that the best social program is a job. Democrats seem to want to cut the military part. That is why I brought up Sun Tsu, to emphasize the importance of a military. Countries have gotten along fine without socialism, but those without a military have been taken over or forced to rely on other countries, hence the creation of groups like NATO. A country, like, say, the Netherlands (I use them because I am half Dutch) could not really defend itself if say Russia or France attacked it. Well, maybe they could against France~D. NATO is very beneficial for countries in that situation, after all, what are allies for.

You are just wrong. You are wrong. What you just said, is incorrect. It is false. Your ideas do not represent reality. Before FDR, troops lived in shanty towns outside Washington D.C. and elderly people died overwhelmingly in poverty, from poverty. Inequality has been rising on a direct correlation since the rise of neo conservatism and the election of Reagan.

I remember an episode of True Detective when Marty's father in law starts ranting about the world going to hell and how families "sticked together" back then. And Marty looks at him and says if things really were that great, why did people change it in the first place?

[HoreTore]

Don't know about social mobility, I know we used to be very socially mobile, not so much now, but that is because of more socialist policies. When we were less socialist, we had greater mobility. Anyway, when more people rely on the federal government, how do they move up, unless your social mobility is all downward. With the socialist trend in America, more people are on foodstamps. Ronald Reagan said that the goal of the welfare state is to force itself out of existence. I guess that is the difference between Americans and Europeans.

lolwut?

The American welfare state is at an all-time low. It used to be bigger back in the 60's and 70's, at which time you had social mobility at levels equal to a standard European country.

But then Reagan came along and slashed the welfare state, which also slashed your social mobility. No president(including Obama) has made any serious attempt to rebuild the welfare state you built up after ww2, and so social mobility in the US remains low.

[HoreTore]

Governments are nothing but many people. I'm not advocating for a move from free market systems, I am saying that the Church needs to be present as a massive bleeding heart that's constantly asking the government how the poor and disadvantaged are surviving.

I may not have a very positive view of Christianity, but I have always liked and respected the church. The reason for that is what you're saying: they stand up for the weak, the poor and the helpless. They fight on their behalf, and does its best to ensure the rest of society do not forget their existence.

[Husar]

Start another crusade, right?~;)

How is that a reply to what I said/asked, right? :dizzy2:

[Kadagar_AV]

Vincent Butler, would you mind clearly showing who you quote. You are just quoting sentences, and it at times gets hard to understand just who you are answering.

Saw that you quoted me way earlier, but as my name wasn't there, I just skimmed it and missed to reply.

Cheers :)

[Crandar]

I may not have a very positive view of Christianity, but I have always liked and respected the church. The reason for that is what you're saying: they stand up for the weak, the poor and the helpless. They fight on their behalf, and does its best to ensure the rest of society do not forget their existence.
By doing what?
Excommunicating revolutionaries?

[HoreTore]

By doing what?
Excommunicating revolutionaries?

By doing what I said in the last two sentences.

[rory_20_uk]

I may not have a very positive view of Christianity, but I have always liked and respected the church. The reason for that is what you're saying: they stand up for the weak, the poor and the helpless. They fight on their behalf, and does its best to ensure the rest of society do not forget their existence.

They like to say they do.

Of course, they also like to hide all evidence to the contrary for as long as possible. And swear victims to secrecy.

And although looking after the poor is of course the main reason for existence, one can't really look after the poor without spending loads of money on oneself and those around one...

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

They like to say they do.

Of course, they also like to hide all evidence to the contrary for as long as possible. And swear victims to secrecy.

And although looking after the poor is of course the main reason for existence, one can't really look after the poor without spending loads of money on oneself and those around one...

~:smoking:

There are certainly a few of those.

Still, my main impression of the priesthood here is that they are a valuable ally in the good fight. They are good guys for the most part.

Note that I am talking of mainstream churches here, not the pentecostals. I have yet to see a sane one among those.

[Vincent Butler]

lolwut?

The American welfare state is at an all-time low. It used to be bigger back in the 60's and 70's, at which time you had social mobility at levels equal to a standard European country.

But then Reagan came along and slashed the welfare state, which also slashed your social mobility. No president(including Obama) has made any serious attempt to rebuild the welfare state you built up after ww2, and so social mobility in the US remains low.

More people are on food stamps then ever before, and President Obama has spent more money in his terms in office then the rest of the Presidents combined, or darned near close to it. And it certainly hasn't gone to defense or securing our borders. Really, we both can find sources to prove our points, it all depends on where you look. And the people at the top stay at the top, regardless. Many of the people at the bottom don't climb because they are content to receive a government check. The middle is where the movement always is, regardless. And before the Great Depression, poor people at least moved up into the middle class. With the increased social spending comes increased taxes, which leads to increased prices, which leads to reduced spending, which means to economic slowdown. As HoreTore mentioned his taxes, I will point out again that over half his income goes to the government. Again, if you don't mind that, fine. Move to Europe. Or stay there, as most people posting here seem to be there. Let us have our country with reduced welfare. Most Americans are cool with that. Welfare is just vote-buying anymore. "Why should I work, the government pays me not to work? I will keep voting the ones who support my laziness." That is not what America was built on. That attitude would not have carved the greatest economic and military superpower the world has ever seen, and that attitude is responsible for the decline in American greatness. I would like to see America return to her former superpower status, not the paper tiger that we have become.
Just a point, our "poverty level" is not poverty.

Let them hate, provided that they fear. Caligula

[Vincent Butler]

Vincent Butler, would you mind clearly showing who you quote. You are just quoting sentences, and it at times gets hard to understand just who you are answering.

Saw that you quoted me way earlier, but as my name wasn't there, I just skimmed it and missed to reply.

Cheers :)
Right, I am guilty of taking the easy route and copying lines instead of replying with quote. Is there a way to reference somebody without using the "Reply with Quote", how do I identify them?

[Ironside]

More people are on food stamps then ever before, and President Obama has spent more money in his terms in office then the rest of the Presidents combined, or darned near close to it.

That is because of the economic crisis. Obama ran with the lowest taxes in 60 years 2008 and 2009 (yes seriously (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg)), as a part of the stimulus package, that was voted in during Bush (IIRC Obama approved though).

I'll leave this link (http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-and-taxes-2012-12?op=1) here. For those interested, St. Louis Fed (FRED) got a really good graph system for stuff like this.

Short version. The big expenses are pensions (I'm sure you've heard the Republicans calling for cutting that one) and the spiraling medical costs, with Medicare (old people) being larger than Medicaid (poor people). The goverment costs for medicin is about 45% of your total medical costs, and is comparable to the average western NHS system in percentage of GDP. I'm sure that touching this one and talking about medical cost reforms will be met with a calm, understanding debate.

Mostly, it's the people above 65 (medicare covers disabled people as well, so it's not only retirees), that cost about 40% of your total budget (2013 numbers). Lazy people indeed. Add military at about 18%. Food stamps are about 2% (indeed record high) and lingers at its crisis level, even if unemplyment has gone down.


Just a point, our "poverty level" is not poverty.

Being poor in the US is being objectivly poorer than being poor in several countries that has less GDP/capita.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That attitude would not have carved the greatest economic and military superpower the world has ever seen, and that attitude is responsible for the decline in American greatness. I would like to see America return to her former superpower status, not the paper tiger that we have become.
Just a point, our "poverty level" is not poverty.

America was built by slaves for 400 years and then abused labor for another 100. You don't really know any poor because welfare queens are a made up sound byte by Reagan.

[Kadagar_AV]

Right, I am guilty of taking the easy route and copying lines instead of replying with quote. Is there a way to reference somebody without using the "Reply with Quote", how do I identify them?

You can as you say reply with quote... You also have a multi quote button bottom right.

If you want to direct someone, you can just write their names in bold. Seems like some work, but when you get used to it it will be second nature :)

[Vincent Butler]

That is because of the economic crisis. Obama ran with the lowest taxes in 60 years 2008 and 2009 (yes seriously (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg)), as a part of the stimulus package, that was voted in during Bush (IIRC Obama approved though).

I'll leave this link (http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-and-taxes-2012-12?op=1) here. For those interested, St. Louis Fed (FRED) got a really good graph system for stuff like this. ...
Being poor in the US is being objectivly poorer than being poor in several countries that has less GDP/capita.

Ironside, is Social Security part of that, do you know? As to the unemployment coming down, it depends on which number you look at. You have the U3 number, those unemployed looking for work, and that is the one that is dropping. The U6 is the number of total unemployed, and last I knew, it was above 10%. Just keep in mind the media was screaming at Bush for 5% unemployment, yet had no problems with 8% under Obama.

[Ironside]

Ironside, is Social Security part of that, do you know? As to the unemployment coming down, it depends on which number you look at. You have the U3 number, those unemployed looking for work, and that is the one that is dropping. The U6 is the number of total unemployed, and last I knew, it was above 10%. Just keep in mind the media was screaming at Bush for 5% unemployment, yet had no problems with 8% under Obama.

Social security is pretty much the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program. So pensions, veteran's aid and disabillity. I haven't dug down the specifics, but pensions are the vast majority of it. Unemployment insurence isn't part of is and is back to pre-crisis levels since this years (with the higher unemployment).

For the unemployment, this graph covers it (http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate). So you can't talk about U6 and 5% under Bush. It was the worst economic crisis since the great depression, the numbers are improving and the US is recovering above average. That's why Obama gets way more leeway than Bush.

[Vincent Butler]

Social security is pretty much the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program. So pensions, veteran's aid and disabillity. I haven't dug down the specifics, but pensions are the vast majority of it. Unemployment insurence isn't part of is and is back to pre-crisis levels since this years (with the higher unemployment).

For the unemployment, this graph covers it (http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate). So you can't talk about U6 and 5% under Bush. It was the worst economic crisis since the great depression, the numbers are improving and the US is recovering above average. That's why Obama gets way more leeway than Bush.

Hardly recovering, despite what our media says. Notice the spike is after the Democrats took both houses of Congress. Now I am aware that to some degree the change in an economy in a new administration is related to the previous administration, not always totally the case. If our economy were on the mend, less people would be on food stamps. Why would we be needing to extend unemployment benefits? Those "stimulus packages" only stimulated the wallets of some fat cats and worthless studies. We are still in a recession, though our media would have people believe otherwise because their primary role now is to protect Obama and his agenda (I mean, our economy shrank the first quarter of the year, and not just because of the weather). And boy does he need their help. Look at Bush and the media only on the attack against him, and look at Obama and the media trying to keep him afloat. But I digress, many of those jobs gained are part-time or government. And outside of hot air, the government doesn't produce anything, it simply takes money (maybe that is what's causing global warming~D). Government adds nothing to the economy, though it provides necessary services such as military and law enforcement. The bottom line is, to quote Reagan, government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. If you like your setup in Sweden, fine. You can keep it. That link you gave had some interesting graphs, by the way.

[Husar]

If the Republicans didn't promise to let them starve in the streets then maybe people on foodstamps wouldn't have to vote against them. Has that ever ocurred to you or do you just blame Obama for making them dependent right away?

And Reagan founded the EPA, he was a pinko librul greenthumbo hippie.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And Reagan founded the EPA, he was a pinko librul greenthumbo hippie.

Nixon did. There is nothing redeeming about Reagan, trust me.

[Husar]

Nixon did. There is nothing redeeming about Reagan, trust me.

Oops, my mistake. I couldn't even tell you what President 5 to 15 did or who they were. :sweatdrop:
Wasn't it Reagan who personally went to Berlin, punched Stalin on the nose and tore down that wall?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oops, my mistake. I couldn't even tell you what President 5 to 15 did or who they were. :sweatdrop:
Wasn't it Reagan who personally went to Berlin, punched Stalin on the nose and tore down that wall?

Nah, he got confused and went to a McDonalds instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvdB6EG844o

[Vincent Butler]

Oops, my mistake. I couldn't even tell you what President 5 to 15 did or who they were. :sweatdrop:
Wasn't it Reagan who personally went to Berlin, punched Stalin on the nose and tore down that wall?

I thought Reagan hit the Nuke button instead of Nurse (for those who know Spitting Image).

Um, Husar, and you are not the only mentioning it, the media likes to give Republicans this image. Where is anybody wanting people to starve in the streets(unless you are being sarcastic, hard to tell on a forum)? The American media paints conservatives as racist, sexist, bigots, homophobes. Might I point out the the Democrats were the ones opposing the civil rights movement. Conservatives are the ones who don't make race an issue in anything. As to the sexism…well, the left is jealous, after all, we have Sarah Palin, Mia Love, Carrie Prejean, Ann Coulter…who do they have, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi? The left-wing media is the one who is always talking about race. Technically, we are all the same race, human, even the skin color is the same color, just varying shades of that color. But in Europe, Democrat is something else than here, there are multiple Democrat parties in Europe, I am familiar with the Christian Democrat party in the Netherlands, I think that is Geert Wilders and his group~:thumb:. I don't know what you have in Germany, probably lot more parties than here, at least Holland does. And not just political parties.:bounce: Europeans party better than Americans, at least I am assuming the Dutch are not alone in that regard. Always cheese and knakwurst and coffee and Spa Appel and Cassis…now I want to visit Holland again. I can at least find imported Stroopwaffels here.

[HoreTore]

The above post is made by someone unaware of the Southern Strategy.

But meh, in economic terms, I don't see the repiblicans as some evil boogeyman. I just see them as ideologically blind and unaware of actual reality.

'Christian Democracy' is a European ideological movement by the way, sort of a centrist blend of religious(mostly progressive) and democratic values. They usually favour a degree of wealth redistribution(socialist style) and conservative values(anti-abortion, focus on family, etc).

Actually, if the Socialist Left Party didn't exist, I would probably vote for KRF, the norwegian christian democrat party. I would hold my nose when looking at their social policies, but I like their economics(with one exception, I actually like it more than the economic policy of the Socialist Left party).

[Husar]

So Republican only complain about too much tax-funding for food stamps because they would rather spend that money on charities helping the poor? Or is the idea to give more money to google so they can hire all these former steel workers who cannot afford a reeducation and let them program the newest web trends?

I don't quite get the idea I'm afraid.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that these are the ideas:

charities will be better at doing the aid than the government will be (on that they might be right... although the provision will be very patchy).

Everyone's idea is always that in the West everyone can be reskilled to do the high power, high tech jobs in the knowledge economy and if only we did something then this would happen.

Retraining is great - and for some people will work. But the question is always - to do what? The era of mass well paying blue collar jobs is practically dead as between automation and competition from abroad there's just not the number. Or pretend that those who struggled at school will be much better at learning academic concepts with a 20 year break.

The UK's logic is that graduates are paid more. Therefore if everyone was a graduate, everyone would earn more. Oh, graduate salaries are dropping? How could that be?

~:smoking:

[Ironside]

The above post is made by someone unaware of the Southern Strategy.

But meh, in economic terms, I don't see the repiblicans as some evil boogeyman. I just see them as ideologically blind and unaware of actual reality.


Short version of the southern strategy. Nixon decided to appeal to the Democrat south to win the election. It succeeded, while the Democrats decided to win the now disenfranchised voters that didn't like the new Republicans. This caused a political shift.
That's why the Republicans win the south nowadays.

The Republicans are in a identity crisis. Currently they're the not-Obama party. The Tea party is ideologically blind and strong enough to influence the rest of the party. Lower taxes with a proper plan is something I would disagree with, but a valid choise, but currently it has the same reality base as Taxed Enough Already, when the taxes were the lowest in 60 years.
Some of the creep is also the worse parts of the Republican social policies.


Hardly recovering, despite what our media says. Notice the spike is after the Democrats took both houses of Congress. Now I am aware that to some degree the change in an economy in a new administration is related to the previous administration, not always totally the case. If our economy were on the mend, less people would be on food stamps. Why would we be needing to extend unemployment benefits? Those "stimulus packages" only stimulated the wallets of some fat cats and worthless studies.

I agree that's not been a good recovery and the wealth accumulation at the top 1% (hi, not working tickle down effect) will probably cause another crash within the next decade.

It's hard to determine exactly how it would've been without the stimulus packages, although crashing banks would've been felt much harder. It can be worth noticing the difference in the banking strategy. A lot of it was taken from a similar situation in Sweden, early 1990-ies. One huge difference is that the goverment here bought the banks needing money. They kept them for years, to get the banks to recover from the toxic investments and then sold them off for a profit.

Gives a bit different feel of rewarding giving money to cover up for a major loss doesn't it?

[HoreTore]

I think that these are the ideas:

charities will be better at doing the aid than the government will be (on that they might be right... although the provision will be very patchy).

You believe have a gazillion tiny organizations working with everything from soup kitchens to rescuing puppies, with a zillion different ideas on how to do things(a hefty number of which will be absolutely idiotic) with spotty and fluctuating funding(a million one day, ten bucks on the other), is going to be a step up from the welfare state?

Further, a welfare state can allocate funds according to need. Charities will provide on a moral basis. Who wants to give something to that slutty single mom? If she had kept her legs shut none of this would've happened, you know...

[rory_20_uk]

You believe have a gazillion tiny organizations working with everything from soup kitchens to rescuing puppies, with a zillion different ideas on how to do things(a hefty number of which will be absolutely idiotic) with spotty and fluctuating funding(a million one day, ten bucks on the other), is going to be a step up from the welfare state?

Further, a welfare state can allocate funds according to need. Charities will provide on a moral basis. Who wants to give something to that slutty single mom? If she had kept her legs shut none of this would've happened, you know...

Firstly, if the government were providing the money, there would not be fluctuating funds.
Secondly, many different ways of approaching things is both better and worse than the monolithic state approach - state workers don't care about what they are doing, merely getting the salary. Like the good old Social Services who after the child died merely stated that in essence the paperwork was all in order - so what's the problem?

The welfare state allocate funds according to its definition of need which can be just as arbitary as a charity - whilst wasting a lot of money on deciding which people fit which category. And many charities give to all based on need, regardless of morals.

There is no clear cut with one being right and the other wrong.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

state workers don't care about what they are doing, merely getting the salary.

If they are those like that, then they are clearly in the wrong job. The only non-carers seem to be upper-management and political/professional-careerists. Working in a public sector job, I know from personal experience and those who I work with, are generally under valued and they give more than what they get asked to do in the private sector at a lower cost. Only advantages in the past, was that there was more job security in return, opposed to the whimsical private sector. (With strangling of budgets and cuts, this disappeared for public sector too)

[rory_20_uk]

I worked for many years in hospitals and have had interactions with other state organs. The concern has almost always been doing what the job requires rather than what is "right" or even "morally correct". The driving factor was a constant job. My favourite one was when we had to do a "child safety" course as GPs. The course organiser couldn't understand my point when I said that the massive number of man hours that was being expended on this (a day training annually for all GPs, trainees and nurses) for there to have been no difference in the death rate in a decade: results? What does that matter - it is the process that we have to do!

I agree that training has been much better - both in house and external courses since I started in the Private sector... because they want me to be good at my job, not keep a seat warm and fill up the Organogram as the metric of success is not forms shuffled into the correct pile.

Job security is utterly non-existent. I've done three jobs in two years and my company is about to be bought out and moved too far to commute - so off I go again. It is more extreme than I'd like / have planned but if nothing else I'm not complacent and very aware that the one thing I need to be is adaptable.

~:smoking:

[Viking]

Morality is in practice a social function.

Whether you believe your morals are objective or not, the results will be very similar: for each moral value you hold, some people will agree with you, others won't.

Even when you agree with another person on a universal source for moral authority, this fact will not change. That is because interpretation and perspective is king.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Morality is in practice a social function.

Whether you believe your morals are objective or not, the results will be very similar: for each moral value you hold, some people will agree with you, others won't.

Even when you agree with another person on a universal source for moral authority, this fact will not change. That is because interpretation and perspective is king.

Why does it have to labelled a social function just because people disagree? Why can't it be something that we simply have not figured out yet?

[Montmorency]

Why can't it be something that we simply have not figured out yet?

Something, something, something - verily.

Praise be to God.

[Hax]

I am familiar with the Christian Democrat party in the Netherlands, I think that is Geert Wilders and his group

Well you're wrong.

Geert Wilders is the leader of the Freedom Pary, the Christian Democrat party is led by a man called Sybrand Buma.

[Viking]

Why does it have to labelled a social function just because people disagree? Why can't it be something that we simply have not figured out yet?

What do you suppose there is to figure out?

I can see lots of things that could need to be figured out, but those are all relative: e.g. given premises x, y and z - which generalised (non-trivial) conclusions can we make about them?

The example above is a mathematical-like approach to philosophy; the application of rigid logic on well-defined (or as well-defined as possible) premises. I suppose there could be some interesting generalised discoveries that could be made like that; though, I also suppose at least some of them should have been found by now if they existed (which they also might have been; I am not that terribly well-read on the subject).

They would still be of the relative type, though - the premises are everything. There are things to say about the selection of premises, too, of course; and the real world might introduce some interesting de facto restrictions and effects compared to a theoretical model of the world.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What do you suppose there is to figure out?

I can see lots of things that could need to be figured out, but those are all relative: e.g. given premises x, y and z - which generalised (non-trivial) conclusions can we make about them?

The example above is a mathematical-like approach to philosophy; the application of rigid logic on well-defined (or as well-defined as possible) premises. I suppose there could be some interesting generalised discoveries that could be made like that; though, I also suppose at least some of them should have been found by now if they existed (which they also might have been; I am not that terribly well-read on the subject).

They would still be of the relative type, though - the premises are everything. There are things to say about the selection of premises, too, of course; and the real world might introduce some interesting de facto restrictions and effects compared to a theoretical model of the world.

My view is that every behavior consists of two extremes and a middle. Morality is always keeping to the middle. I don't personally care for debating who is right in a clash of conflicts because in my opinion intellectualism taken to an extreme is a vice. I am not a smart man and I am sure someone somewhere can always break down my views in detail and show what an illogical fool I am for thinking my ways and premises are objectively better than any other culture. But Western culture is the only one so far that I could live freely in if I was homosexual. So I take it as I see it and always leave myself open to correction and critical examination about flaws in Western society (always something to improve) but never doubting its foundation (secular government, human rights, free speech).

[HopAlongBunny]

What we suffer from in these uncertain times is a lack of truthiness:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/truthiness_research_cognitive_biases_for_simple_clear_conservative_messages.html

[Vincent Butler]

Well you're wrong.

Geert Wilders is the leader of the Freedom Pary, the Christian Democrat party is led by a man called Sybrand Buma.

OK, thanks for correcting me.

[Viking]

My view is that every behavior consists of two extremes and a middle. Morality is always keeping to the middle.

What do you mean by this? Given the choice between chopping off all 4 or none of the limbs of a thief, chopping off 2 is the moral option?


I don't personally care for debating who is right in a clash of conflicts because in my opinion intellectualism taken to an extreme is a vice.

Do you have an example of 'intellectualism taken to an extreme'?

[Beskar]

Do you have an example of 'intellectualism taken to an extreme'?

"We are going to disregard all ethics and study for pure knowledge! There is no evil, except standing in the path of progress!"

Only thing I can think of, mad-scientist tropes.

[Hax]

"Everyone who is not intelligent enough should be forcibly sterilised"

[a completely inoffensive name]

What do you mean by this? Given the choice between chopping off all 4 or none of the limbs of a thief, chopping off 2 is the moral option?



Do you have an example of 'intellectualism taken to an extreme'?
Well chopping someones arms is an action not a behavior. The behavior is aggression, an extreme, the opposite extreme of which is timidity, the middle of which is something along the lines of confident. Of you want examples of intellectualism gone too far, hax gives a good example. Look at many of the policies of the progressives in America during the early twentieth century. Forcing ideas which work on paper but doesn't conform to or accommodate the changes to the lives of the public, is intellectualism to an extreme. There is a reason why the term ivory tower exists in the first place. Do you really believe intellectualism is virtuous to any and all degrees?

[HoreTore]

I accept the last two explanations of the concept, but I have trouble with naming it 'intellectualism'.

Both are examples of inherently stupid things. It's not the clever people who argue for limiting the vote based on IQ, for example, it is people who believe they are clever. The smart people knows that limiting the vote is not a very smart thing to do. There's a reason why the idea is widely discussed on blogs, but almost never in educational institutions.

If 'changes in the first half of the 20th century' is a reference to prohibition, I would disagree. Prohibition was absolutely needed, and it worked wonders. Compare substance abuse before and after prohibition for proof. There's a reason why the 50 years before prohibition is referred to as The Great Binge.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well to go back a few posts, I said it was intellectualism taken to an extreme. I also feel it deserves a name of its own, separate from anything that might confer that the ideas are smart, which they are not. As GC notes, if you go far enough in both extremes, they start to look eerily similar. As for prohibition, the government could have just made public intoxication a death sentence and it would have achieved the same goal of scaring many and driving others underground. Prohibition is still a failure because the same results could have been achieved in a less totalitarian method, unless you are the kind of person who still believes the war on drugs is still the best defense against rampant heroin addiction. Not to mention the other issues of prohibition which includes the complete destruction of american beer and spirit craftsmanship which is only in the past 15 years beginning to rebuild. And let's not talk about the oligopoly in the beer market that was unapologetically cemented into law after prohibition that suppressed small businesses and promoted government corruption.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think that extremely stringent drinking laws would do Britain the world of good. It is staggering what alcohol-related problems cost our economy, indeed the extent of the problem is so wide and varied that it is almost incomprehensible - everything from the burden its puts on the NHS, to the prison system, to the welfare system, to days missed off work... not to mention the indirect effects it has on peoples' lives - broken marriages, spousal/child abuse, unwanted pregnancies, mental health, unemployment, etc. The drinking culture in Britain is shocking, you can't compare it to what you see in Souther Europe, or indeed most of the rest of the world. What is going on today is well beyond what is acceptable. Remember this gem? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706534/Magaluf-bar-British-girl-filmed-performing-sex-acts-24-men-shut-police-investigation-video.html)

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest outright prohibition, since that would be totalitarian. However, it is well within both the spirit and the tradition of those governments at Westminster that secured and protected our liberties for hundreds of years, to take very harsh measures against the production and distribution of alcohol.

The aim in such measures should be to foster a healthy drinking culture. To allow our small, traditional pubs to flourish, while slamming the big chain-pubs and the night-clubs which seem to be increasingly ubiquitous. Allow our small, traditional breweries to recover while slamming the big multinational corporations that have shut them down.

This would take a multi-pronged approach. A good start might be to:

1. Ban any company above a certain size from producing alcohol - this removes competition from local brewers, while also taking the cheapest alcohol (and thus the most problematic) off the market.
2. Ban chain pubs - same reasoning as above, these tend to be the sort of places where our binge drinking culture manifests itself, not the more quaint local establishments.
3. Ban certain alcohol imports - eg cheap foreign trash that fuels problem drinking, while allowing the connoisseur to get their French wines and German lagers. A simple rule to avoid red-tape would be to have a minimum retail price per unit - anything below it isn't allowed.
4. Subside alcohol advertisements - help the local brewers to get their name out and re-market alcohol as part of a different experience - not as something to be part of a 'night out', but as a traditional beverage to be enjoyed with a family meal.
5. Stop going overboard with the alcohol education in schools - seriously, its counter-productive. It makes it seem cool and risky and rebellious, and highlighting the dangers doesn't really counteract those points - kids see adults drinking it all the time so they know it won't kill them, at least not right away.

[Fragony]

Nothing of all that is going to help, the UK has a bigger problem, sadness. The UK is a truly depressing place. Not the countryside, but the city's. It sucks every bit of happiness out of your bones.

[Husar]

Nothing of all that is going to help, the UK has a bigger problem, sadness. The UK is a truly depressing place. Not the countryside, but the city's. It sucks every bit of happiness out of your bones.

Yes, most people drink because it's the only way they know to feel some kind of happiness and to forget their worries.

Don't just fight the symptoms.

[Fragony]

Good move to help my point across https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gMwzvAt84P8

Don't be put of by the violent sex in the first scene, movie is full of brilliant dialogues and observations.

But it's mostly very sad.

Well worth your time.

[Greyblades]

Nothing of all that is going to help, the UK has a bigger problem, sadness. The UK is a truly depressing place. Not the countryside, but the city's. It sucks every bit of happiness out of your bones.

'Pretty sure that's true of all large cities post recession.

[Viking]

Well chopping someones arms is an action not a behavior. The behavior is aggression, an extreme, the opposite extreme of which is timidity, the middle of which is something along the lines of confident.

It's not aggression, it's punishment for a transgression (stealing). The thief was the aggressor.


"We are going to disregard all ethics and study for pure knowledge! There is no evil, except standing in the path of progress!"

I don't think the concept of human progress is inherent to intellectualism.


"Everyone who is not intelligent enough should be forcibly sterilised"


Anti-Intellectualism and Intellectualism taken to an extreme (Such as advocating for the removal of stupid people) both stem from the desire to create a superior category of people (philosophically or academically or in some other abstract way) who are defined less by what they are, and more by what they are not. Its Nazism, quite frankly. The details don't matter that much.

:rtwno:

And in my most humble and often controversial opinion, dogmatic religious zealotry often does the exact same thing. Its the original thing, if you will. That's the double-edged sword of faith. You can organize your society, you can give it morals, but you can also make them judgemental zealots who spread fear and hate of the "other". Is it a stretch to say a society organized by faith in science runs the same risks? Especially a society where the majority don't have the personal knowledge to appreciate the finer points of skepticism and acceptance?

Hmmm... :quiet:

This sounds more like intellIGENCEism. Same category as racism, speciesism and so on.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think that extremely stringent drinking laws would do Britain the world of good. It is staggering what alcohol-related problems cost our economy, indeed the extent of the problem is so wide and varied that it is almost incomprehensible - everything from the burden its puts on the NHS, to the prison system, to the welfare system, to days missed off work... not to mention the indirect effects it has on peoples' lives - broken marriages, spousal/child abuse, unwanted pregnancies, mental health, unemployment, etc. The drinking culture in Britain is shocking, you can't compare it to what you see in Souther Europe, or indeed most of the rest of the world. What is going on today is well beyond what is acceptable. Remember this gem? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706534/Magaluf-bar-British-girl-filmed-performing-sex-acts-24-men-shut-police-investigation-video.html)

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest outright prohibition, since that would be totalitarian. However, it is well within both the spirit and the tradition of those governments at Westminster that secured and protected our liberties for hundreds of years, to take very harsh measures against the production and distribution of alcohol.

The aim in such measures should be to foster a healthy drinking culture. To allow our small, traditional pubs to flourish, while slamming the big chain-pubs and the night-clubs which seem to be increasingly ubiquitous. Allow our small, traditional breweries to recover while slamming the big multinational corporations that have shut them down.

This would take a multi-pronged approach. A good start might be to:

1. Ban any company above a certain size from producing alcohol - this removes competition from local brewers, while also taking the cheapest alcohol (and thus the most problematic) off the market.
2. Ban chain pubs - same reasoning as above, these tend to be the sort of places where our binge drinking culture manifests itself, not the more quaint local establishments.
3. Ban certain alcohol imports - eg cheap foreign trash that fuels problem drinking, while allowing the connoisseur to get their French wines and German lagers. A simple rule to avoid red-tape would be to have a minimum retail price per unit - anything below it isn't allowed.
4. Subside alcohol advertisements - help the local brewers to get their name out and re-market alcohol as part of a different experience - not as something to be part of a 'night out', but as a traditional beverage to be enjoyed with a family meal.
5. Stop going overboard with the alcohol education in schools - seriously, its counter-productive. It makes it seem cool and risky and rebellious, and highlighting the dangers doesn't really counteract those points - kids see adults drinking it all the time so they know it won't kill them, at least not right away.

This too seems to go over the board with government actions. You want government to essentially pick and choose the winners of the market without actually tackling the cultural problems of binge drinking. What message is the government sending when it declares a war on binge drinking....and then proceeds to fund alcohol advertising and reduce education in schools. All you are doing is forcing the binge drinkers to go towards the local pubs and distillers/breweries which now have regional monopolies and jack up the prices for alcoholic beverages. The article you posted talked about a woman performing sexual acts on two dozen guys for a drink (presumably she did not have the money to buy one), do you think that higher prices for drinks will reduce or increase the odds of that happening more often?

If any thing more education is needed along with more subtle laws that serve to promote incentives to not drink as heavily. Another question to ask is why young people seem to think there is nothing else to do with their time other than drink.


It's not aggression, it's punishment for a transgression (stealing). The thief was the aggressor.

And you are responding back with blind aggression right back towards the thief instead of letting the due process of the law take effect. Chopping someones arms off for stealing is excessive so I don't know what point you are trying to make that undermines what I am saying.

[Husar]

'Pretty sure that's true of all large cities post recession.

In the UK maybe, in Germany the cities are not as sad.

[Beskar]

charities will be better at doing the aid than the government will be (on that they might be right... although the provision will be very patchy).

Unfortunately this is not the case, compare the systems in the US and the UK to see why. The US has nothing like the welfare system we experience over here, and it would be really unfair to judge them by the same standards. Especially in the US, government funding and taxes are significantly lower, but the 'freed' money doesn't help the poorest. Even though we don't have the best, as posters here will tell you from their own situation, it is far better than a few of the almost desperate cries which have been heard in the backroom before from poorer Americans which have gone into details about their struggles.

I remember posts screaming about the crisis and how they really struggle to hold down any jobs due to mass firing by firms and even when they got a job, they were getting absolute peanuts due to it being the 'service industry', which is half minimum wage, no 'tips', having to use your own car, fuel, with no cash to cover it. Compared to the same job here which comes with company vehicle, proper and higher minimum wage, etc. (we also have health, etc)

What is worse is when Americans complain about 'spending too much' on them, when they are really 'spending too little'.

Don't even get me started at the disgrace of a mental health system they have, which is basically throwing ill people into prisons...


I worked for many years in hospitals and have had interactions with other state organs. The concern has almost always been doing what the job requires rather than what is "right" or even "morally correct". The driving factor was a constant job. My favourite one was when we had to do a "child safety" course as GPs. The course organiser couldn't understand my point when I said that the massive number of man hours that was being expended on this (a day training annually for all GPs, trainees and nurses) for there to have been no difference in the death rate in a decade: results? What does that matter - it is the process that we have to do!

GPs and Doctors, sorry to say, but they are typically aloof (have met a couple of real passionate ones, though) and usually, it is the lower-staff which are actually doing the real work and whilst the doctor or consultant goes "yes yes.. so where am I signing so I can go on my golfing trip?". A great many courses, especially for frontline staff, such as Support Workers, Nurses, etc have had a great difference and reduction in risks, deaths and incidents (safety, CNR, BLS, AM) and these are the people are usually take the most care in looking after their patients.


Job security is utterly non-existent. I've done three jobs in two years and my company is about to be bought out and moved too far to commute - so off I go again. It is more extreme than I'd like / have planned but if nothing else I'm not complacent and very aware that the one thing I need to be is adaptable.

Yes, which is as I mentioned, private sector is very cut-throat and there is a high job turnover whilst the public sector whilst had the lower wages, you had far better job security. Though with the NHS freezing and cuts, in the space of a couple of years, I had to apply for the job, re-apply for the job when they closed down units in the local area, and I would have had to re-apply again for moving to a new hospital (which is smaller but hopefully, a significant quality upgrade.)

[Viking]

And you are responding back with blind aggression right back towards the thief instead of letting the due process of the law take effect. Chopping someones arms off for stealing is excessive so I don't know what point you are trying to make that undermines what I am saying.

The problem is how you define aggression. The process of law can be also be viewed as aggressive. And of course, the process of law could also end in the chopping of limbs if that's what the law says it should do (also, how do you define excessive?).

[a completely inoffensive name]

The problem is how you define aggression. The process of law can be also be viewed as aggressive. And of course, the process of law could also end in the chopping of limbs if that's what the law says it should do (also, how do you define excessive?).

Aggression is defined by the specific scenario in question and the possible choices. This might sound dumb Viking, but I don't like to attach rigid definitions to be applied to scenarios because that presumes:

A. That morality is simply following a logical flow chart.
B. Morality is knowledge not a skill.

In the case of catching a thief in the act. Your actions can range from letting him go in fear of what he may do (a reasonable concern, to be fair), subduing and turning him over to the police to be prosecuted by the government, an (ideally) universally agreed upon institution for judgment and punishment, or you can murder him (or do some varying degree of injury to the thief). The middle ground seems to be turning him over to be tried in accordance with the law while the other options are relative extremes (fear and aggression). By giving up the opportunity to give punishment yourself and turning him to the government, you display confidence towards the thief that he won't get away with his crime without needing to be violent (beyond what is necessary to contain him).

If the government has a punishment disproportionate to the crime (such as death penalty to all thieves), then the scenario is different and what is aggressive operates under a different context. It may very well be better to hurt the thief yourself in order to scare him away, if the other options are to let him escape unabated or sending him to certain death by the government.

I'm sorry if this makes no sense to you, but building moral laws from first principles always results in increasingly odd and counter intuitive consequences or obviously repugnant choices. It's a skill to be practiced in my opinion.

Obviously, some parts of this is clearly me half understanding Aristotle. But if I remember correctly, even Aristotle liked to make rigid definitions for behaviors like courage when he gave examples. I don't even like going that far.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This too seems to go over the board with government actions. You want government to essentially pick and choose the winners of the market without actually tackling the cultural problems of binge drinking.

There's more to it than that. The more small-scale, traditional breweries are almost marketing a different product - its physical content is the same, but as a product its image and the experience associated with it is totally different. Local brews are what posh English people drink in quaint country pubs, it is an entirely different market from that of the cheap garbage aimed at binge-drinking clubbers. It will be advertised differently, it will be sold in different establishments... it is about changing culture.

Still, pricing itself matters, and this is recognised by policy-makers. In fact there are already laws quite similar to what I advocate in the very liberal-lefty lands of Scandinavia (see Systembolaget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget), Alko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alko), etc) and to a lesser extent, Scottish minimum pricing laws (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/4/pdfs/asp_20120004_en.pdf). In the case of Scotland, these measures have come about through a recognition of the devastation alcohol causes, not out of any sort of moralising agenda.


What message is the government sending when it declares a war on binge drinking....and then proceeds to fund alcohol advertising and reduce education in schools.

Nobody needs to declare any wars here. I suggested subsidies because we have to be proactive in changing the drinking culture. Part of that is changing the 'experience' surrounding alcohol - make it less about getting intoxicated, and more about enjoying a traditional beverege, something that gives you a taste of the local area, a taste of history, whatever.


All you are doing is forcing the binge drinkers to go towards the local pubs and distillers/breweries which now have regional monopolies and jack up the prices for alcoholic beverages.

Aye, but the behaviour surrounding binge drinking would never be tolerated in many a quiet local. Right now, the chain-pubs and clubs in town and city centres form a sort of binge-drinking complex. I know from my limited experience the clubs and pubs there work closely together, eg pubs selling discount wrist-band/tickets that get you into the club down the street. My proposals are about destroying these ties. The idea that all the young folk from my town that go up to Glasgow city centre for a night out, would suddenly descend upon the little local pubs filled with mostly fat middle-aged men is ludicrous, IMO. Drinking would lose all its glitz and glam. Like I said, its about destroying the culture.


The article you posted talked about a woman performing sexual acts on two dozen guys for a drink (presumably she did not have the money to buy one), do you think that higher prices for drinks will reduce or increase the odds of that happening more often?

She wasn't an alky, she wasn't dying for her next drink. She was a recreational drinker - the price had nothing to do with her doing what she did. The culture of drunken sensuality, loss of inhibition, peer pressure and moral looseness on the other hand, had a lot to do with it. We need to destroy that culture.


If any thing more education is needed along with more subtle laws that serve to promote incentives to not drink as heavily.

I wish I had the article to hand, but I remember reading that drug abuse amongst teenagers in the USA exploded after a rather alarmist campaign was launched to warn them of the danger of drugs. Despite the fact that drug abuse was negligible amongst teenagers, some parents had a moral panic and kickstarted a huge education campaign to warn kids to stay away from drugs. They presented this idea that all the cool kids were doing drugs, that there was massive peer pressure to take drugs, even when there wasn't. Of course, this silly campaign made kids think that if they weren't doing drugs, then they were somehow freaks and not one of the cool kids. As a consequence, drug abuse shot up.

From what I remember, I think the same thing happens with alcohol education in schools. The schools themselves are cementing alcohols reputation as something cool and rebellious. They should stick to hard facts (health risks, etc) instead of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where alcohol is presented as being a certain way, and so they reinforce its image as being such.


Another question to ask is why young people seem to think there is nothing else to do with their time other than drink.

That's a good question but it goes well beyond the scope of this discussion.

[Fragony]

Again I refer to this movie, watch it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gMwzvAt84P8 it's the full movie and it's legal.

The clue is behind the lines

[Greyblades]

In the UK maybe, in Germany the cities are not as sad.

Well, yeah, but the recession didnt hit you as hard as the rest of the world. We're still caught up in the after effects of the second great depression over here.

[Husar]

Well, yeah, but the recession didnt hit you as hard as the rest of the world. We're still caught up in the after effects of the second great depression over here.

Yeah, we actually have an economy that is not 95% banks and service industry. ~;)

But the point was that it's not true for all large cities like you said.
It's probably not true for Dutch and other cities either.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's more to it than that. The more small-scale, traditional breweries are almost marketing a different product - its physical content is the same, but as a product its image and the experience associated with it is totally different. Local brews are what posh English people drink in quaint country pubs, it is an entirely different market from that of the cheap garbage aimed at binge-drinking clubbers. It will be advertised differently, it will be sold in different establishments... it is about changing culture.

Ok, but here is the thing, you are assuming that the culture of small pubs will remain unaffected by the influx of young people who now must drink in these different establishments. What is to stop small pubs from accommodating the desires of the youth who are now forced to visit small pubs?



Still, pricing itself matters, and this is recognised by policy-makers. In fact there are already laws quite similar to what I advocate in the very liberal-lefty lands of Scandinavia (see Systembolaget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget), Alko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alko), etc) and to a lesser extent, Scottish minimum pricing laws (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/4/pdfs/asp_20120004_en.pdf). In the case of Scotland, these measures have come about through a recognition of the devastation alcohol causes, not out of any sort of moralising agenda.

Sure, but the Scottish minimum pricing law is an example of a subtle law that I would (and do) support. It doesn't have to force establishments to close or accommodate new people and yet it still promotes less drinking.



Nobody needs to declare any wars here. I suggested subsidies because we have to be proactive in changing the drinking culture. Part of that is changing the 'experience' surrounding alcohol - make it less about getting intoxicated, and more about enjoying a traditional beverege, something that gives you a taste of the local area, a taste of history, whatever.

I agree in being proactive, but the fact remains that under this type of policy, there will be clear winners and clear losers, no? It all seems to reek of social engineering (which is not inherently bad in itself) with a large capacity for exploitation and corruption.



Aye, but the behaviour surrounding binge drinking would never be tolerated in many a quiet local. Right now, the chain-pubs and clubs in town and city centres form a sort of binge-drinking complex. I know from my limited experience the clubs and pubs there work closely together, eg pubs selling discount wrist-band/tickets that get you into the club down the street. My proposals are about destroying these ties. The idea that all the young folk from my town that go up to Glasgow city centre for a night out, would suddenly descend upon the little local pubs filled with mostly fat middle-aged men is ludicrous, IMO. Drinking would lose all its glitz and glam. Like I said, its about destroying the culture.

And there is the assumption I have been trying to point out. Perhaps this is just a part of UK culture that I have no idea about it, but to me, I would think that small pub owners would tolerate anything as long as they make a healthy profit off of it. If they are competing with other small pubs over this influx of young people, they may just as well re brand themselves and kick out the fat, middle aged men. Who is to say that small pubs won't encourage binge drinking once they get a taste of the revenue it generates?



She wasn't an alky, she wasn't dying for her next drink. She was a recreational drinker - the price had nothing to do with her doing what she did. The culture of drunken sensuality, loss of inhibition, peer pressure and moral looseness on the other hand, had a lot to do with it. We need to destroy that culture.

To an extent. But my feeling is that these policies are still intrusive and still only make superficial treatments to the symptoms not the cause. I think the culture is what creates chain pubs and clubs, not the other way around.



I wish I had the article to hand, but I remember reading that drug abuse amongst teenagers in the USA exploded after a rather alarmist campaign was launched to warn them of the danger of drugs. Despite the fact that drug abuse was negligible amongst teenagers, some parents had a moral panic and kickstarted a huge education campaign to warn kids to stay away from drugs. They presented this idea that all the cool kids were doing drugs, that there was massive peer pressure to take drugs, even when there wasn't. Of course, this silly campaign made kids think that if they weren't doing drugs, then they were somehow freaks and not one of the cool kids. As a consequence, drug abuse shot up.

From what I remember, I think the same thing happens with alcohol education in schools. The schools themselves are cementing alcohols reputation as something cool and rebellious. They should stick to hard facts (health risks, etc) instead of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where alcohol is presented as being a certain way, and so they reinforce its image as being such.

I think you may have been reading about D.A.R.E (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education). which was part of the curriculum when I was in middle school (it is now discontinued in many areas because of its massive failure). Personally, I do not think the increase use of drugs went exactly as you described it. The DARE program was a failure because it was the exact opposite of education. It was lies and propaganda. I still remember the videos today of the cartoon kid getting "addicted" to the "gateway drug" marijuana and moving on to cocaine and heroin. It tried to present the laughable case that marijuana as a Schedule I drug was just as dangerous as all other Schedule I drugs.

Students will experiment, its just how kids are. When you have figures of authority tell you that marijuana will get you addicted on the first puff and immediately cause permanent brain damage, you now have kids losing all trust in authority since they get high for the first time, enjoy it and 30 minutes later realize that they are completely fine. The dangers of drug use (almost) always stem from habitual usage and constant exposure, not singular events. The real danger of DARE is that once you find out that they lied about pot, some students take it once step further and think that the really dangerous drugs must have also been exaggerated.

To this day, I cannot recall when any movement has been made to give young people accurate and scientific data regarding drug use. It's all fear mongering and spin, which only works on people for a time.




That's a good question but it goes well beyond the scope of this discussion.

For another time then.

[HoreTore]

Vinmonopolet and Systembolaget are wonderful institutions to both the teetotaler and the drunkard.

Sure, it limits the availability and it jacks up the price, but that's all worth it for the wonderful selection it provides.

As a happy drunk, I dread the day I can buy wine at the grocery store.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ok, but here is the thing, you are assuming that the culture of small pubs will remain unaffected by the influx of young people who now must drink in these different establishments. What is to stop small pubs from accommodating the desires of the youth who are now forced to visit small pubs?

... And there is the assumption I have been trying to point out. Perhaps this is just a part of UK culture that I have no idea about it, but to me, I would think that small pub owners would tolerate anything as long as they make a healthy profit off of it. If they are competing with other small pubs over this influx of young people, they may just as well re brand themselves and kick out the fat, middle aged men. Who is to say that small pubs won't encourage binge drinking once they get a taste of the revenue it generates?

I think what you are saying here will happen to some extent, but the present binge drinking culture you see in the chain-pubs and nightclubs of the city centres will never be replicated in the same way in smaller, local establishments. I think you are making a mistake in viewing binge drinkers as being primarily attracted to the drink, in and of itself. I think its more about the glitz and glam of the clubs, the dancing, the open fornication (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/images-of-women-straddling-men-in-belfasts-el-divino-car-park-causes-stir-online-30440943.html), the social status of going to 'cool' clubs, the media portrayal of going to such places as being the 'done thing'. And of course the cheap booze.

All of those things would be lost overnight under my proposals. I don't think the binge drinking culture could survive without that environment. Binge drinkers won't be attracted to small, traditional pubs without all those things, regardless of whether or not such pubs would try to cater for them.


Sure, but the Scottish minimum pricing law is an example of a subtle law that I would (and do) support. It doesn't have to force establishments to close or accommodate new people and yet it still promotes less drinking.

Of course, I suppose it is a sort of minor version of what I am proposing. I think it will have limited success, however it won't be ground-breaking because it only tackles one piece of the puzzle.


I agree in being proactive, but the fact remains that under this type of policy, there will be clear winners and clear losers, no? It all seems to reek of social engineering (which is not inherently bad in itself) with a large capacity for exploitation and corruption.

There are clear winners and losers right now - the winners are the multinational corporations, and the losers are the NHS, the welfare system, the prison system, the education system, the taxpayer, rape victims, victims of violence, society in general, etc.

I also think that the case of the monopolies in Scandinavia shows that we can have tight regulations without also having significant corruption.


To an extent. But my feeling is that these policies are still intrusive and still only make superficial treatments to the symptoms not the cause. I think the culture is what creates chain pubs and clubs, not the other way around.

The chain-pubs and the clubs are the very root of the drinking culture. Nightclubs are not some sort of organic development which happens when a bunch of people partying in a field conclude that the logical next step is to make a permanent building to house their activities. When a nightclub sets up in a town, it brings the binge drinking culture with it because it fosters the conditions that allow it to take place. There's nothing superficial about removing the clubs.


I think you may have been reading about D.A.R.E (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education). which was part of the curriculum when I was in middle school (it is now discontinued in many areas because of its massive failure). Personally, I do not think the increase use of drugs went exactly as you described it. The DARE program was a failure because it was the exact opposite of education. It was lies and propaganda. I still remember the videos today of the cartoon kid getting "addicted" to the "gateway drug" marijuana and moving on to cocaine and heroin. It tried to present the laughable case that marijuana as a Schedule I drug was just as dangerous as all other Schedule I drugs.

Students will experiment, its just how kids are. When you have figures of authority tell you that marijuana will get you addicted on the first puff and immediately cause permanent brain damage, you now have kids losing all trust in authority since they get high for the first time, enjoy it and 30 minutes later realize that they are completely fine. The dangers of drug use (almost) always stem from habitual usage and constant exposure, not singular events. The real danger of DARE is that once you find out that they lied about pot, some students take it once step further and think that the really dangerous drugs must have also been exaggerated.

To this day, I cannot recall when any movement has been made to give young people accurate and scientific data regarding drug use. It's all fear mongering and spin, which only works on people for a time.

That may well have been it. I think schools should calm down and take a more measured approach to drugs and alcohol. Stick to the honest facts when it comes to the health and social problems they cause, and don't overplay the extent of the problem because of a moral panic.

Heh, this topic reminds me of a video we watched at school. It was about the danger of AIDS, and had three characters - one who injected drugs, one who had unprotected sex, and one who stayed away from these things. At the end you had to guess who got AIDS... turned out the ones doing drugs and unprotected sex were fine, but the poor straight-laced guy poked his finger on a needle in a bin and got infected. Seemed like a totally counter-productive message to me, I think the producers were trying to be a bit smart for their own good.

I think we just need to chill and stop presenting the world as a terrible and dangerous place. We should be trying to give kids faith in society, not traumatise them towards it.

[HoreTore]

I'm not responsible for teaching morality to your brats.

My job is to teach your brats that what they learn at home is wrong.

Take some damn responsibility, parents, raising your kids is your job.

[HopAlongBunny]

Well the Brits have been turning to drink for a long time. One could make the case that it is a tradition they are famous for:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/09/05/the_gin_craze_war_tyranny_class_and_the_dark_histo ry_of_england_s_love_affair.html

[Viking]

This might sound dumb Viking, but I don't like to attach rigid definitions to be applied to scenarios because that presumes:

A. That morality is simply following a logical flow chart.
B. Morality is knowledge not a skill.

That skill and knowledge (or logic) should be separate things strike me as a false dichotomy. Think of craftsmanship: we can program a robot to recreate even the finest work made by hand. The robot does this by following purely logical routines.

(and of course, whether something sounds dumb is ultimately irrelevant ~;))


I'm sorry if this makes no sense to you, but building moral laws from first principles always results in increasingly odd and counter intuitive consequences or obviously repugnant choices. It's a skill to be practiced in my opinion.

If you encounter repugnant choices, then presumably something is incorrect about your moral theory (as far as this is something undesired).

[a completely inoffensive name]

That skill and knowledge (or logic) should be separate things strike me as a false dichotomy. Think of craftsmanship: we can program a robot to recreate even the finest work made by hand. The robot does this by following purely logical routines.

True, it is a false dichotomy. However, the difference between a robot and a human is that a human can know what the right thing is and still not do it. There are plenty of people who have known since they were kids what is right and what is wrong and they still go off and do terrible things, murder, theft, bringing down the world economy through fraudulently rated, high risk, mortgage bundles. The robot has no choice but to make the work of art, while the human does. That's why I view morality through behaviors and not if they hold themselves to a logical code.



(and of course, whether something sounds dumb is ultimately irrelevant ~;))
:D



If you encounter repugnant choices, then presumably something is incorrect about your moral theory (as far as this is something undesired).

Can you think of any modern theory (enlightenment until today) that doesn't lead to any repugnant choices?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think we just need to chill and stop presenting the world as a terrible and dangerous place. We should be trying to give kids faith in society, not traumatise them towards it.

I agree with this statement 100%. And I think I will reconsider some of the suggestions you have made. It's now seems convincing to me.

[Viking]

That's why I view morality through behaviors and not if they hold themselves to a logical code.

I don't see what this has to do with logical codes specifically.



Can you think of any modern theory (enlightenment until today) that doesn't lead to any repugnant choices?

Maybe the choices are not repugnant to the author of the theory, or maybe they convinced themselves that the repugnant quality was an illusion they needed to overcome.

Maybe the the most popular theories are the simplest ones and therefore are more likely to lead to repugnant choices, as they lack the more complex design a functional moral theory requires.