The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

I personally don't eat whale meat because there's other fish I eat that I like much better....like marinated baked tilappia (sp?) fillets....yum....expensive when fresh like most seafood so I don't eat it often but yummy stuff

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

I don’t have a problem with hunting a whale per say, if this is just talking about killing a whale for practical reason, like food. However only an idiot hunts a species to extinction, a good hunter should manage the species they are after, ensure that there are sufficient numbers so that they can continue to survive and provide a resource for the hunter. The fact that whales are endangered shows the idiocy of the whaling community. I’m a hunter, though obviously shooting rabbits and pheasants in England is a little different in scale to whale hunting. However the principle is the same, myself and fellow hunters and game keepers, we don’t over hunt and gamekeepers manage populations to make sure the numbers are kept up. After all it’s in our best interests to keep the population of these creatures high so there’s plenty of them for us to shoot for years to come.

[hedwig]

Is science used as a smokescreen for whaling for other purposes?

Absolutely!

[mad_gater]

I don’t have a problem with hunting a whale per say, if this is just talking about killing a whale for practical reason, like food. However only an idiot hunts a species to extinction, a good hunter should manage the species they are after, ensure that there are sufficient numbers so that they can continue to survive and provide a resource for the hunter. The fact that whales are endangered shows the idiocy of the whaling community. I’m a hunter, though obviously shooting rabbits and pheasants in England is a little different in scale to whale hunting. However the principle is the same, myself and fellow hunters and game keepers, we don’t over hunt and gamekeepers manage populations to make sure the numbers are kept up. After all it’s in our best interests to keep the population of these creatures high so there’s plenty of them for us to shoot for years to come.

indeed.....I don't hunt mainly cuz I couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.....

I tried some skeet-shooting once at boy scout summer camp and I missed every single clay disc....the only one that broke did so cuz it hit the tree....

[mad_gater]

Absolutely!

well I'd highly doubt science is being use as a smokescreen for hunting whales to extinction in ALL cases....but in some cases yeah it probably is

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

indeed.....I don't hunt mainly cuz I couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.....

I tried some skeet-shooting once at boy scout summer camp and I missed every single clay disc....the only one that broke did so cuz it hit the tree....

Practice makes perfect. I have a friend who family owns a house and quite a bit of land in the countryside. We went there to do some rabbit shooting one weekend. Unfortunately there was a very good pub nearby and we were to hung over to get up in the morning to take a shot at the rabbits. Still did lots of shooting during the day, just at targets but it helps get your eye in for when you do have a rabbit in your sights. And I've drifted off topic.

I suppose we could talk about gun politics but I think that would cause this thread to tread into herp derp territory faster than anything i could think of.

[mad_gater]

Practice makes perfect. I have a friend who family owns a house and quite a bit of land in the countryside. We went there to do some rabbit shooting one weekend. Unfortunately there was a very good pub nearby and we were to hung over to get up in the morning to take a shot at the rabbits. Still did lots of shooting during the day, just at targets but it helps get your eye in for when you do have a rabbit in your sights. And I've drifted off topic.

I suppose we could talk about gun politics but I think that would cause this thread to tread into herp derp territory faster than anything i could think of.

yeah...

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

I don’t have a problem with hunting a whale per say, if this is just talking about killing a whale for practical reason, like food. However only an idiot hunts a species to extinction, a good hunter should manage the species they are after, ensure that there are sufficient numbers so that they can continue to survive and provide a resource for the hunter. The fact that whales are endangered shows the idiocy of the whaling community. I’m a hunter, though obviously shooting rabbits and pheasants in England is a little different in scale to whale hunting. However the principle is the same, myself and fellow hunters and game keepers, we don’t over hunt and gamekeepers manage populations to make sure the numbers are kept up. After all it’s in our best interests to keep the population of these creatures high so there’s plenty of them for us to shoot for years to come.

I have no problem at all with sustainable, responsible hunting. It IS idiotic to hunt a species to extinction and yes, a good hunter should manage and respect what he hunts. Hunting a species to death is not respect and in the long run, ensures that it's YOU that dies of hunger. I think it's the sheer amount of money that gets tossed around that blows this to the proportions it does. Plinking at a few rabbits for dinner isn't going to rake in a lot of bucks and it's not going to wipe out a species either. Killing whales (or shark-finning, or over-fishing for that matter) doesn't usually come out of a need to put food on people's plates so much as it comes from a desire to put a hell of a lot of money in people's pockets.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

It's bit like oil industry as some point the oil WILL run out but they make so much money off it their not willing to slow down (though some are looking to renewables).

[jmoz]

In order to make things fair, I say give the hunted a gun and the ability to use a gun. Otherwise, it's 'oh look at me, I have a gun that can kill you in one shot from a distancce, aren't I a big man'. Yes, I think hunting for sport is wrong. Especially hunting endangered species.

I'll delve further and present two points of reasoning for my stance. Or just take them at their face value.

Imagine nothing but blackness. Then you come into existence. You are one being and all around you there is nothing. You have no idea whether you are still or moving at a great speed. There is no air for you to make that determination. Then another being comes into existence a distance away from you. But you still cannot determine if you are still or moving. All you can determine is that you can move some distance relative to that person. That other person gives you perspective. Then there are more persons and more different beings. They all give you unique and different perspectives, not just confined to your spacial status.

To tie that back into the animals thing, all the various animals give us new perspectives. If we don't have certain perspectives, we just become closer to that singular lone being in a region of nothingness. Of course, some perspectives should be squelched because they infringe on other more numerous perspectives. Infringe on others existences. Such as hunting something to extinction when it plays a crucial role in the food chain.

My other point of reasoning is the zoo hypothesis (not unique, many of you probably already know this one). Imagine we're all ants. We go about our daily lives of collecting food and surviving. Then some being comes and kills us with chemicals because we are a nuisance. They don't understand our pleas when we try to get them to stop. All we want to do is live. Now imagine that but replace ants with humans and the beings that are killing with advanced aliens. We're nothing more than a nuisance to them and are in no position to explain our right of existence to them due to a lack of communication and unwillingness of the aliens. We are inferior animals to them.

To tie that into animals, what right do we have to end their existence because they lack our mental facilities and greater perspective into the world?

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

In order to make things fair, I say give the hunted a gun and the ability to use a gun. Otherwise, it's 'oh look at me, I have a gun that can kill you in one shot from a distancce, aren't I a big man'. Yes, I think hunting for sport is wrong. Especially hunting endangered species.

I'll delve further and present two points of reasoning for my stance. Or just take them at their face value.

Imagine nothing but blackness. Then you come into existence. You are one being and all around you there is nothing. You have no idea whether you are still or moving at a great speed. There is no air for you to make that determination. Then another being comes into existence a distance away from you. But you still cannot determine if you are still or moving. All you can determine is that you can move some distance relative to that person. That other person gives you perspective. Then there are more persons and more different beings. They all give you unique and different perspectives, not just confined to your spacial status.

To tie that back into the animals thing, all the various animals give us new perspectives. If we don't have certain perspectives, we just become closer to that singular lone being in a region of nothingness. Of course, some perspectives should be squelched because they infringe on other more numerous perspectives. Infringe on others existences. Such as hunting something to extinction when it plays a crucial role in the food chain.

My other point of reasoning is the zoo hypothesis (not unique, many of you probably already know this one). Imagine we're all ants. We go about our daily lives of collecting food and surviving. Then some being comes and kills us with chemicals because we are a nuisance. They don't understand our pleas when we try to get them to stop. All we want to do is live. Now imagine that but replace ants with humans and the beings that are killing with advanced aliens. We're nothing more than a nuisance to them and are in no position to explain our right of existence to them due to a lack of communication and unwillingness of the aliens. We are inferior animals to them.

To tie that into animals, what right do we have to end their existence because they lack our mental facilities and greater perspective into the world?

I get what your saying but as a meat eater I don't value an animals life as much as human so I support hunting as long as it doesn't effect the species as a whole. Saying that us humans are responsible for countless extinctions so I might support drastic action to stop this trend.

[mad_gater]

it appears certain people are still blind as to why charity is superior than basically having the government take care of you in a de facto nanny state:

it's because certain people have been brainwashed into thinking that free-market is evil....it's not.....in the free-market system it's based on one simple concept.....the world does NOT owe you a living, so if you want a living you go out and you invest blood, sweat, and tears like the rest of us....in a free market system though it allows for the rise of businesses in the form of non-profits designed to give people a helping hand in learning how to function under such a simple concept....in this system government is there to support charities, not the other way around.....in this system control lies with the citizenry on an individual basis as to how best to use their time, talent, and treasure to help the needy

de facto socialism through government welfare though seeks to perpetuate the idea that somehow the world owes you a living on a silver platter......in this system control of the use of time, talent, and treasure to help the needy is taken away from the hands of the people through confiscatory taxation policies designed to punish success and hard labor....because once the government levies those taxes......the person's control over the fruits of his labor disappears

under the free market system the economy operates under the common sense fact that wealth is PRODUCED by the hard work of laborers....the more you labor the more wealth you produce for yourself

by contrast de facto socialism thru government welfare programs operates under the faulty notion that wealth is something to be consumed...as if wealth is set at a constant number and people are lining up at the proverbial feeding trough....but this reliance on such a faulty notion is why socialism eventually collapses on itself.....cuz you'll eventually run out of wealth to "consume".....because there is no more wealth being produced because EVERYONE has bought into the faulty notion that they're owed a living on a silver platter

under the free market one labors and receives a tangible reward for his labor....under socialistic economic policies there is no incentive to labor.....because confiscatory taxation policies have robbed them of that incentive, causing the society to grind to a halt and the utopia everyone wished for to come crumbling down like a house built on sand

[mad_gater]

free market is by no means perfect, but it's the best out of all economic systems.....it's not perfect because yeah you'll get your Ebenezer Scrooges from time to time.....but on the whole people in a free market society are extremely generous with the fruits of their labor......it might surprise you to know that on average, conservatives gave more to charity than liberals, while making on average less than liberals....just think how much more could be donated when the people are freed of the shackles big government

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government strong enough to take away everything you have"

[Womble]

free market is by no means perfect, but it's the best out of all economic systems.....

And therefore, logically, free market supplemented by regulation to mitigate the downsides is the best option.

......it might surprise you to know that on average, conservatives gave more to charity than liberals, while making on average less than liberals...

Yes, but do they give enough to actually offset the need for government-sponsored healthcare?

If you're going to claim that private charity is a viable substitute to government welfare, it's not enough to merely show that people donate money. You have to prove that the amount of wealth privately donated to charities would exceed the amount currently invested in government welfare. But is that the case? If the conservatives had their way on welfare and taxes, would they actually donate as much to charity as they currently pay in taxes?

The problem with your first post is that you're trying to free-float between the economic and the moralistic arguments, and even throw political arguments into the mix. "The world doesn't owe you a living" is not an economic argument that shows free market as superior; it's a sanctimonious proclamation that people who are poor and starving should get over it, go out and get a job. The talk about how "in this system control lies with the citizenry" is not economic talk; it's purely political talk. So let's quit the misdirection and separate the steaks from the flies, shall we?

Economy wise, unregulated free market is superior... for a while. Wealth is invested (mostly) based on economic merit, initiative is (mostly) rewarded, social mobility is (mostly) encouraged, intelligent and hardworking people (sometimes) get rich. So long as the market factors are the only factors in play, it all works more or less smoothly. Then what?

Then wealth begins to accumulate in the upper tier, and the free market begins to undo its own advances. You can't start small anymore. With exceedingly rare exceptions, it is no longer possible to succeed by opening a coffee shop or a bookstore, because the market is saturated and big companies control most of it. They can take more losses than you can, and that allows them to force you out of the market by lowering their prices long enough for you to go bankrupt, then crank the prices WAY up and recoup their losses at the consumer's expense. Suddenly you need money to make money. If you weren't born into money, your chances of making it into the first tier are slim to none. There goes the social mobility.

Then there is the employer-employee conflict. Employers want maximum profit for minimum investment, so they want to pay workers less and invest less into maintaining safe and proper working conditions. They also want to be able to fire anyone, for any reason, at any time. During the Industrial revolition- the height of laissez-faire, unregulated industrial freedoms- it made children the ideal workers because they could be paid 20% of an adult's wage, they ate less and they were easier to control as a workforce. In the early 1800-s, for 30% of all British families, children aged 4-13 were the breadwinners, working up to 16 hours a day in factories, agriculture and coal mines. In some industries- like cotton mills- up to two-thirds of all workers were children. Eventually, the British government intervened and put legal limits on this mess. Which was terrible, of course. Nobody owed those children a living. Those meddling government regulators never let the free market work its magic, do they?

Or, for that matter, take the phenomenon of mining towns, entirely dependend on a single large company for livelyhood.

Then there's the increasing cost of professional education, which prevents people from getting even into the second tier. When education is treated as a commodity that must be bought at a fair market price, it creates a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and kills social mobility on the spot. I know an American family- a white, non-immigrant family- whose child is the first member of the family to go to college- because they are the first generation of their family who can afford the costs of education. When you start off poor and all your sweat, blood and tears doesn't earn enough to send your children to college, your society has a big nasty problem that cannot be handwaved away as "nobody owes you a living on a silver platter".

Bottom line is, free market only truly works when government intervention provides and maintains a fertile soil for it to grow in. Healthcare, education, workers' rights, defense and welfare cannot be left to the mercy of the market because without them, the free market runs itself into stagnation and drags the society into the abyss.

[jmoz]

I get what your saying but as a meat eater I don't value an animals life as much as human so I support hunting as long as it doesn't effect the species as a whole. Saying that us humans are responsible for countless extinctions so I might support drastic action to stop this trend.

Yea, I agree with you on that, overpopulation and such. There you go another topic of discussion: overpopulation.

Sorry, hasty reply. I have to disagree with some things though. If some advanced aliens saw us as animals, by your reasoning, its ok for them to hunt us as long as it doesn't effect our species as a whole. I guess the discrepancy comes when one attempts to set parameters of effecting a species as a whole.

Sorry the market/economy/charity stuff is too dense for me. I'll just offer an opinion. Free market works initially, but then it becomes more totalitarianistic. You get the rise of rich and wealthy individual. And you try to say that they earned it through their own hard work and whatnot. Sure, some actors and entertainment related people earned their wealth through hard work. But vast majority earned their wealth due to their vanity, inheritance, and whatnot. You honestly cannot be arguing that they earned their wealth.

And the whole concept of materialistic wealth is not very moralistic, now is it? What does wealth imply? It essentially means you have more than someone else. There will always be that discrepancy. You having more than someone else if wealth exists. In order for you to have wealth, someone has to have less than you to give rise to the concept of wealth.

And about charity, I'll bring up Peter Singer. He's a prolific philosopher. In one of his works, he establishes what moral duty is:

If you see a child drowning, you would save the child, would you not?

That's your moral duty. And he goes on further to say that moral duty should not be limited to your proximity or immediate physical exertion. You can fulfill your moral duty by donating money. That is akin to saving that child.

And the point he makes is that charity is going beyond your moral duty. It is going beyond just saving that child. It is finding out why that child was drowning, giving that child swimming lessons, etc. He definitely makes a distinction between what our moral duty should be and what charity should be. Charity should be going beyond what is and already should be our moral duty. So what you're describing as charity is not really charity according to Singer, that's just your moral obligation.