[split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 07:08 AM by DLJ.)
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
Matt Finney Wrote:...
Would you go as far as to say that we should ban tobacco altogether?
...

If that happened, I'd go underground (like I did when my ex insisted I stopped smoking).

And ironically, underground is where I'll end up (or cremated).

(14-09-2015 05:27 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
ps. I'm not a smoker and I enjoy being able to go to smoke free establishments, I just don't like the degradation of freedom, when the I think the market (supply/demand) is already equipped to deal with this issue.

In principle I agree, but this is the point in the thread where GirlyMan posts his picture of a burning river.

Meaning, that market forces alone do not a healthy society make.

Or some such.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
14-09-2015, 05:46 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 05:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Meaning, that market forces alone do not a healthy society make.

Or some such.

Sure we could ban bacon, cigs, alcohol, horseback riding, motorcycles, extreme sports ect.....but is it worth giving up our freedom?

Should we force people to be healthy? Should we force people to read books and become vegan?

I just have this crazy idea of letting people think for themselves.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 05:47 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 05:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  Who is society for? The members of society or an elite?

Is this a trick question? Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 05:57 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 05:47 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 05:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  Who is society for? The members of society or an elite?

Is this a trick question? Huh

No. But if you answer that society is for us, then what's wrong with us making rules that restrict the free market in exchange for fairer treatment for all? What prevents us from even making rules that everyone is entitled to a job? After all everyone is entitled to life, love and the pursuit of happiness. An unbridled free market, where people are free to act as they like, will definitely result in some people's access to those things being restricted, so we restrict the greed of the elite for the benefit of the many.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
14-09-2015, 06:07 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 05:46 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 05:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Meaning, that market forces alone do not a healthy society make.

Or some such.

Sure we could ban bacon, cigs, alcohol, horseback riding, motorcycles, extreme sports ect.....but is it worth giving up our freedom?

Should we force people to be healthy? Should we force people to read books and become vegan?

I just have this crazy idea of letting people think for themselves.....

Tsk! Tsk! Why so black and white?

Banning is not the only (and probably the least effective) method of social engineering.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:10 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 05:47 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 05:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  Who is society for? The members of society or an elite?

Is this a trick question? Huh

The Patricians. The Plebs. Or both?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:24 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 06:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Banning is not the only (and probably the least effective) method of social engineering.

Except when banning smoking in bars....then it's the best method, right? Huh

Look, guys....I'm sorry, but I'm not going to change my mind on this. I'm all for banning smoking in all public places (streets, government buildings, public parks, etc), but I'm talking about the inside of a privately owned pub. I would even support banning smoking in homes and cars when kids are inside. I still say, if the market has a demand for either smoking, or smoke-free bars, then that's what you'll see.

Regarding social engineering....I don't really want someone trying to socially engineer me. Again, call me strange, but "being socially engineered" hasn't made it to my to-do list just yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:29 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 06:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Regarding social engineering....I don't really want someone trying to socially engineer me. Again, call me strange, but "being socially engineered" hasn't made it to my to-do list just yet.

Except in a totally free market (somehow "regulated by unions", which are *totally* not the same thing as government oversight), you might not have a choice over what some guy with power says you are to do with your life. Why do ya think democracy and all that other shit exists in the first place?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:36 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
You've already been conditioned Matt.

People even like the music corporations choose for them. I know people who do it for a living. Well, they used to.

Go to the What are you listening to thread. It's is basically all product that was pushed by recording companies to demographics they chose and created. Nothing wrong with it, but this is how it works in a capitalist society.

And this is only music.

This is why I never listen to commercial radio or watch TV.

I bet you never heard this. It is not of your demographic.




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 07:02 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 07:07 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 05:14 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 04:58 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  I disagree. I think there is good reason to doubt that people would be safer if alcohol was illegal.
I think the Prohibition Era in the US demonstrated that quite nicely; alcohol consumption and crime both increased, as did the use of alternative and potentially dangerous substances such as patent medicines, opium, and cocaine.

"We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level." http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675

hmm.....

So opium and cocaine are "potentially dangerous", but not alcohol? Huh

Mark Thornton Wrote:It should be noted that annual per capita consumption and the percentage of annual per capita income spent on alcohol had been steadily falling before Prohibition and that annual spending on alcohol during Prohibition was greater than it had been before Prohibition[4].

...

(the) consumption of alcohol actually rose steadily after an initial drop. Annual per capita consumption had been declining since 1910, reached an all-time low during the depression of 1921, and then began to increase in 1922. Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933.[6] Illicit production and distribution continued to expand throughout Prohibition despite ever-increasing resources devoted to enforcement.[7] That pattern of consumption, shown in Figure 1, is to be expected after an entire industry is banned: new entrepreneurs in the underground economy improve techniques and expand output, while consumers begin to realize the folly of the ban.

(Figure 1: Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.)
[Image: pa-157a.gif]
Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 23-26, 72.
[4] See Mark Thornton, "The Economics of Prohibition" (Ph.D. diss., Auburn University, 1989), pp. 174-80
[6] According to Warburton, from 1921 to 1929 the apparent per capita consumption of beer increased 463 percent, that of wine increased 100 percent, and that of spirits increased 520 percent. While per capita beer consumption in 1929 was only one-third the 1909 level, per capita consumption of wine and spirits was above 1909 levels. If that trend had continued, total per capita consumption of alcohol would have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels during the mid-1930s. Warburton, p. 174.
[7] As noted above, Warburton found that production of beer, wine, and spirits rapidly expanded during the 1920s. It should be remembered that illegal sources of alcohol were just organizing in 1920-21 and that large inventories could still be relied on during those early years.

Later in the paper, Thornton notes that the Prohibition had multiple consequences contradictory to its own goals: the strength of many alcohols increased considerably, a good deal was made by amateur moonshiner's whose products were likely to harm or kill consumers (likely leading to sky-rocketing rates of death by alcohol poisoning), and it may have actually increased the availability of alcohol. This was in addition to the considerable increase in crime rates which followed the enactment of Prohibition laws, and the increased spending on and consumption of more potentially dangerous and addictive substances (like the previously mentioned drugs and patent medicines among others) which brought more people into contact with criminals, further increasing risks.
The overall point being that making alcohol illegal wouldn't improve the state of things.

Getting away from the paper: Yes, I would say drugs like opium, cocaine, and quack works like patent medicines are more dangerous than alcohol. Narcotics and the like not only tend to be more addictive than alcohol, they tend to be considerably more potent, and patent medicines could be filled with any number of deleterious substances. In addition to that, much like Prohibition era bootleg booze, illegal narcotics (then and now) are unregulated outside of criminal prosecution and are usually contaminated with adulterants likely to harm consumers, which I feel leads them to be considerably more dangerous than alcohol which is largely controlled and held to standards.
I'm not dismissing alcohol as a potentially dangerous substance, I just think it represents a lesser risk relative to other substances.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: