|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:But everything is political football. Any measure will gently caress people over somehow. That's complete nonsense. Let me give you an example. Say we pass a law that makes it illegal to discriminate against gays. Who exactly gets hosed over by that law? Here's another example. Suppose we pass a law that requires public disclosure of campaign financing sources, even when they're donations to PACs. Do you think the people whose formerly-secret donations are being "hosed over" by such a law? E.g., would you describe them as victims, somehow? One more example. When government banned lead in gasoline, car companies had to spend money to redesign engines so that they could run on unleaded gas. Meanwhile, literally everyone in the country, including millions of people who would be born in the following decades, stopped being continuously poisoned. Do you think it would be reasonable to describe automobile manufacturers as having been "hosed over somehow" by that law? The difference here is that possibly some patients in the VA hospital system will be unable to afford their medicine, or simply entirely unable to get medicine they need. I don't think that's definitely going to happen, but it's a possibility. If that happens, those people will be victims. Not just inconvenienced, not just a political faction losing influence, not just a manufacturer having to internalize the previously externalized horrendous costs of their products, and not just some people whose bigotry is no longer tolerated; but actual victims of unintended consequences of a complicated legal experiment. I think it's fine if you supported the law, there's solid reasons to do so. But I don't think it's at all reasonable to argue that all possible laws involve victimizing one group in order to favor another.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:Pharma companies know that they have no duty to the state, citizens of California, or veterans. The measure can really only lead to one thing if passed. fear will keep the local health systems in line fear of this ballotstation
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Wow you're terrible. Unfortunately, there are winners and losers in this system. We've seen the efficacy of wedge issues since at least '82. Other than some vague sense of bourgeois morality, why should we hamstring ourselves by not using the tools that are in play? Idealism has a place but in elections you can't think about individuals. Instead you have to consider the competing interests of different groups and how they relate to each other. Realism is bad in foreign policy but absolutely vital for domestic policy, especially in a hyper polarized environment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
That all makes sense and I did not mean to say that we should not choose the laws which benefit the most people and hurt the least. What I mean by some people get hosed over by every law is this: using your example about discrimination against gays, there are many hardcore Christians who would fight to repeal the law because it infringes on their religious freedoms. Do I agree with that? Hell no. But is there always going to be a group of people who think their freedoms are being infringed upon who fight against a measure? Yes. Will there be certain companies who will fight a measure simply because it will cause their product to be used less? Yes. Those people in your example who now have to disclose their campaign donors? THEY would consider themselves victims and fight against that proposition. There is always a lobby for and against these things. There is always a backlash or an argument, no matter how clear cut something is. Have you ever been to a town hall meeting? It is positively absurd how entitled people are over the most petty and obvious things. It is impossible to satisfy everyone and there are a lot of people who have nothing better to do than cause a political ruckus. It's a lot more complex than it may seem. That being said, as you mentioned, you weigh those outcomes against what the bill would do and the likelihoods of all the different circumstances. Brodeurs Nanny fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:which I believe is actually printed in the voter guide that our environmentally friendly state killed a whole bunch of trees to send you. Actually we generally get our paper from sustainable tree farms now and have for a long time, according to my Environmental Science professor, but please continue your pseudo-intellectual outrage at people who don't agree with you
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Nah, just because someone believes their religious freedoms would be affected, doesn't make that true. Because it isn't. If what you meant was, there's always someone who thinks they'll be hosed over, sure, of course. There's also people who think contrails are dropping mind control substances on them. We don't have to account for people who are mistaken about the consequences of a law when deciding if the law is good or bad, because they're wrong. Shbobdb posted:Unfortunately, there are winners and losers in this system. We've seen the efficacy of wedge issues since at least '82. Other than some vague sense of bourgeois morality, why should we hamstring ourselves by not using the tools that are in play? No, there are not always winners and losers. Improving access to medicine does not require that someone else lose access to medicine, or that their medicine be more expensive. At worst, the "losers" can be the shareholders of wildly profitable pharma companies (who, by the way, frequently spend more on marketing their drugs than they do developing them), but that's qualitatively different than creating actual victims - harming people. And by your argument, intentionally using them as political footballs in order to advance an ideological cause? In elections you totally can think about individuals. Competing interests of different groups are not always equivalencies. Sometimes one group's interest is valid and valuable, and another group's interest is invalid or incorrect or not valuable at all. Realism is always good, yes: but realistically, it's not always (or I'd argue even usually) necessary to hurt one group - as in, actually harm them, vs. merely offend them - in order to help another group. Example: demonstratably, the death penalty does not deter crime. Eliminating the death penalty would save money, too. Who would be hurt, if we eliminated the death penalty? Nobody, that's who. Oh, certainly a lot of people would believe they'd be hurt: some buy the (proven incorrect) argument that the penalty is a deterrent, some feel a strong need for revenge against murderers, and some think that abandoning the death penalty represents a general trend away from law and order in our society. But none of those people would be actually harmed, because as I said twice already, the death penalty doesn't deter crime, not being able to exact revenge doesn't actually harm you, and moving our criminal justice system in the direction of rationality and fairness and away from irrationality and capriciousness (not to mention racist outcomes) does not actually trend away from law and order in our society. Simpler example: a law that says you can't hunt an endangered species does not actually "harm" hunters. Not unless those hunters' lives are literally dependent on hunting endangered species. Inconvenienced? Yes. Annoyed, perhaps enraged, because "big government" is keeping them from doing something they want to do? Sure. Some people who are delusional would argue the species isn't actually endangered, and other people might not actually value the preservation of endangered species, and they might oppose such a law. But harmed? No, come on. Yes, there are Inuit groups who are allowed to hunt endangered whales, under limited circumstances, in recognition that they would actually be harmed if they weren't permitted to do so; you can carefully write smart laws to carve out exceptions that avoid harming specific groups. Even if you disagree with all of this, it's still disgusting to leverage a threat to sick people (but they're veterans!) in order to try to get lower drug prices. Your stated sentiment was that since other groups have used sick veterans as leverage to get what they want, it's OK for people who want lower drug prices to do the same. That, in a political context or not, is wrong. It's unethical at a very basic level. I don't know how to show that more clearly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
If people alter their behavior based on perception of a law, and if that perception can be anticipated, then harm (which is a vague term) is assumed to occur prior to passage even if minor and dismissable. It may not be a lot of harm or it may be worth doing anyway but negative indirect impacts are expected from pretty much any government activity, even if it's "g-man was doing a thing, now has to also do other things, slightly neglecting first thing". You're also assuming laws are smartly written which is a whole separate issue, including what would be considered "smartly", because there's a lot of space between someone passing a law and the people implementing and interpreting that law, sometimes having to mesh other competing laws together. Like, I can anticipate all sorts of entities that could be harmed as a result of banning the death penalty or adding a critter to the endangered list. Even your exemptions could result in harm to the group exempted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
This is becoming a semantic argument, which I realize people hate, but: "harm," defined so loosely, becomes a meaningless word. I'm using it to descrobe more narrowly, the sorts of things that might happen to people who can't get their loving medication; and I mean it distinctly from things like inconvenience, or offense, or cost. Do laws always cost something? Yes, of course they do. At the very least, someone has to be paid to write them down. Enforcing rules also costs. Rules are restrictions, and even rules which are made specifically to protect a privilege from government restriction (think the 1st amendment) still invariably come at some cost. So if you define any cost as constituting "harm" then yes, all choices involving any cost whatsoever cause harm to some party. But can we please not try to just erase the argument I'm presenting, by redefining my terms into uselessness?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
If banning recreational hunting doesn't hurt hunters does banning recreational pot hurt stoners? Assume magically perfect enforcement (no racism, all punishment fits the crime, treatment for hunting addictions etc) and full medical hunting and medical pot access. Stoners would be annoyed, perhaps enraged, because "big government" is keeping them from doing something they want to do? Sure. But harmed? Nah!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
OK, first I want to be clear, I brought up hunting of endangered species, not all hunting in general. But yeah, banning all recreational hunting does not "harm" hunters, using the narrow definition I just presented. It certainly would be a restriction of their previously well protected rights, and it might actually harm ecologies. But no, "you can't go kill animals any more" doesn't make someone get sick, or keep them from recovering from an illness. It might affect some hunters' livelihoods, if they have a hunting-based profession. And that'd be something close to harm - financial harm, anyway. And I don't think you should wreck people's livelihoods without a good reason, but there are cases where you have to: coal miners are not going to get to keep mining coal, if we want to save our civilization. And no, banning pot doesn't directly harm stoners. It's dumb, though! Prohibition of a basically harmless substance (see what I did there? lol) provably creates black markets, and those black markets provably harm lots of people. Alcohol prohibition was ended for similar reasons: not because of a great concern that people were being harmed directly by lack of access to recreational ethanol, but because the black market alcohol industry was killing lots of people and also sucking up massive amounts of money to combat and also providing ready sources of revenue to otherwise already really bad people (the mob). Can we remember the premise, here? The idea that all legislation has to hurt someone. Not just inconvenience, or challenge, or offend, but actually harm people. Not just some kinds of legislation, but all. And therefore, it would be OK to pass a law that you believed would harm VA hospital patients (by raising the cost of their prescription meds or in some cases making some meds entirely unavailable to them) because someone is always harmed, and therefore, go ahead and harm someone intentionally if it helps you advance some other priority that you have. So I'm not seeing exactly what you're getting at, Trab. Are you trying to draw some kind of equivalence between "you might get sick or stay sick or not be cured or perhaps just die, because your health care system suddenly can't provide you with medicine to treat your problem" with "you might not get to enjoy the passtime of getting high on pot/hunting animals"? Because I really don't think those are equivalent and I think it's pretty lovely to try and gloss it over in order to advance political policy. In this particular case, it's particularly telling because there have to be ways to lower medical costs without picking some disadvantaged group to victimize: I'm sure of it, because there are a bunch of other countries that somehow manage to get medicine to their citizenry without this sort of dickery. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I personally enjoy understanding the rules of others worldview, you answered my semi-silly semi-serious question in a logically consistent way that's also consistent with the values underlying your previous statements. I disagree and think we are obliged to consider the widest net of harms even if it weighs down debate. As to the prop at hand, the challenge is the high degree of ambiguity in potential outcomes. I think we are overestimating the impact of potential future outcry and likely underestimating the ability of drug companies to do something harmful without having to flip over the table and leave CA completely. So i donno. Is it worth some unforeseen harms for the potential price benefit? I could see myself not voting on this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
You are still approaching it from an Idealistic and individualistic standpoint. That's a fine way to approach things but it's going to run counter to realist analyses that rely on the actions of groups. Either party A wins or party B wins. Look at the death penalty propositions where they each have included a poisoned pill to nullify the other. For someone taking such a radically individualistic and Idealistic perspective, you do seem to also hold strongly absolute morals. That isn't a bad thing, it's normally part-and-parcel of the package. It's also where it will run up against the morally relative Realist approach. It's a fine stump speech but you aren't speaking to anyone that doesn't already agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
I actually do think we're obliged to consider the widest net of negative effects and outcomes whenever we enact, change, or choose not to enact legislation. I just disagree that all legislation invariably has to hurt people. And I felt that was being whitewashed with more vague assertions that, well, since all laws cost money or all laws get opposed by someone or all laws restrict are freedom or whatever the gently caress, that equates to harm and therefore there's no point considering harm, because gently caress it, someone always gets hurt, so just do whatever you want. I bet you (Trab) agree with me on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:You are still approaching it from an Idealistic and individualistic standpoint. That's a fine way to approach things but it's going to run counter to realist analyses that rely on the actions of groups. Either party A wins or party B wins. Look at the death penalty propositions where they each have included a poisoned pill to nullify the other. There is bipartisan legislation and there are even laws that are more or less universally agreed to. Many of them are foundational. It's fine to recognize that often, or even usually, some faction loses: but recognizing that doesn't mean the losers can be conveniently dismissed or ignored as inevitable human casualties in the war of ideas. Some losses are far more severe than others, and there has to be a line drawn somewhere where you say "my political goal, if enacted, causes so much damage to someone that it's unconscionable."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There is bipartisan legislation and there are even laws that are more or less universally agreed to. Many of them are foundational. It's fine to recognize that often, or even usually, some faction loses: but recognizing that doesn't mean the losers can be conveniently dismissed or ignored as inevitable human casualties in the war of ideas. I'm with with you up to here, no complaints. Leperflesh posted:Some losses are far more severe than others, and there has to be a line drawn somewhere where you say "my political goal, if enacted, causes so much damage to someone that it's unconscionable." Sure, that's a fair thing to say but it's also a strawman. In this situation, which you have described as "evil" I presented a case where either (best case scenario) there is a net gain for pretty much everybody because drug prices have been successfully lowered or (medium case scenario) a visible tool of the opposition is pushed towards the center and a major opposition player is forced to look really bad. To me, worst case scenario is that drug prices continue to be horrific for non-veteran Californians (a group much larger than veteran Californians but not unified or organized in a meaningful way from this perspective). I'd much prefer a situation where "everybody" wins. That's lower drug prices for non-veteran Californians while veterans keep their cheaper prices. Veterans "lose" here because their privilege is eroded and drug companies lose here because their profit margins go down. I'm OK with that trade because the pain of the loss is massively outweighed by the gains. It's like gay rights. So now it's juggling odds. I think the most likely outcome is that drug companies will cause a loving ruckus and try to gently caress everyone over. But I think there is a reasonable chance that they will cave since California is a massive loving market and has a history of leading the way (like emissions). One in six Americans is a Californian. I'm fine leveraging that market. Because the "bad" alternative of the "yes" vote is still better than the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Yeah I don't mind using politics to try to nudge veterans to the left. That's fine. I do think that if you believe vets might lose access to important medicine, and you move ahead anyway on the basis that losing their medicine will help to leverage a political movement, that's wrong and borderline evil, yeah. I agree with you that it's not a super likely outcome, but you're arguing that even if that's the outcome, it's not so bad, and I'm extremely disagreeing with that. I don't really care if it makes some veterans more democrat and less republican, if the cost is that someone maybe dies of cancer or whatever. Like maybe your intent isn't "it's OK if Bob the Veteran can't get his expensive treatments for his leukemia, if that makes veterans in general less Republican" but I think that's the essence of your argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Actually, traffic fatality rates have either stayed the same or dropped in legalized states. The problem is that unscrupulous anti-legalization advocates deliberately confuse the issue by pointing out that traffic fatalities "involving" marijuana have increased sharply. Which is true, but rather meaningless: for one thing, legalization has caused state LEO agencies to devote more resources to catching stoned drivers(meaning that more stoned drivers are getting caught and more fatal traffic accidents are being scrutinized for marijuana involvement) and for another, these studies fail to distinguish between the presence of inactive marijuana metabolites(which can stay in one's system for up to a month after smoking cannabis) and actual intoxication. As a greater percentage of the adult population dabbles with marijuana, it's inevitable that a higher percentage of those killed in car crashes will show signs of having smoked marijuana at some point in the past month. I forgot I asked this question until just now and I started wondering again. Thank you for the response / ammunition. I swear I'm surrounded by the squarest squares ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah I don't mind using politics to try to nudge veterans to the left. That's fine. I do think that if you believe vets might lose access to important medicine, and you move ahead anyway on the basis that losing their medicine will help to leverage a political movement, that's wrong and borderline evil, yeah. Given Hillary's Hawkish history and Putin's aggressive foreign policy, there is a chance that a Hillary Presidency will lead to full scale Nuclear War! Keeping with the nuke theme, given Trump's status as Putin's Puppet, he's not going to start a nuclear exchange with Russia but he may use theater nukes or small scale tactical nukes against opponents that do not have the ability to retaliate. The Hillary "Nuclear Annihilation" scenario is pretty loving unlikely in my opinion. The fact that it might happen isn't enough to sway my vote. There is always a disaster scenario, I just think it is absurd to capture those and use them to frame a moral discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
I think the chances Hilldawg starts a nuclear war are incredibly tiny and the chances that this prop will wind up costing some vets their health or lives are small, but still thousands of times larger than the nuclear scenario. "X is unlikely" and "Y is unlikely" doesn't mean X and Y are equally likely and therefore equally worthy of consideration or dismissal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think the chances Hilldawg starts a nuclear war are incredibly tiny and the chances that this prop will wind up costing some vets their health or lives are small, but still thousands of times larger than the nuclear scenario. You continue to argue with a figment of your imagination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
OK. I don't think we're getting anywhere. Thankfully this measure will pass or fail by thousands of votes so 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
The biggest problem with 61 is that it exempts Medi-cal managed care from participating. That population is the biggest group of people that CA buys drugs for and it's only growing now that they are transferring more people from Medi-cal direct to managed care. You can get a much better deal when negotiating prices with a large patient population and this prop is excluding the largest population, how much sense does that make? Not to mention the study that provided the numbers for how much Medi-cal spends for drugs vs how much the VA spends came from the mid 2000s and Medi-cal has changed substantially since then. I trust the current chief of pharmacy policy for the CA department of health care services when he says that right now Medi-cal pays around the same or even less than VA prices. It's probably going to pass cause most people don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision, but it really is a lovely idea. If you really want to lower the prices that CA gov pays for drugs you should change the policies that prevent them from negotiating prices as entire group instead of every program negotiating separately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
I'm worried that the effort, either not passing or falling apart the first time the pharmaceutical industry calls California's bluff, will get painted as California being unable to negotiate on behalf of 40 million people when it's closer to 4 million. No can at least be painted as 'we really haven't tried'. Yes, and the inevitable balk, will come across as 'Even a top-ten world economy can't deal with these people, what hope do we have' and/or 'California's government failing again  '.61 just makes me sort of regret the proposition system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Silly Kitty posted:If you really want to lower the prices that CA gov pays for drugs you should change the policies that prevent them from negotiating prices as entire group instead of every program negotiating separately. I agree but that's super not feasible because of politics. Like, the only person arguing for that approach in the real political realm is Trump and it's part of his racial National Socialist program.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:OK, first I want to be clear, I brought up hunting of endangered species, not all hunting in general. quote:Can we remember the premise, here? The idea that all legislation has to hurt someone. Not just inconvenience, or challenge, or offend, but actually harm people. Not just some kinds of legislation, but all. And therefore, it would be OK to pass a law that you believed would harm VA hospital patients (by raising the cost of their prescription meds or in some cases making some meds entirely unavailable to them) because someone is always harmed, and therefore, go ahead and harm someone intentionally if it helps you advance some other priority that you have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:OK. I don't think we're getting anywhere. Thankfully this measure will pass or fail by thousands of votes so I do appreciate your gimmick where you are the effete liberal. It's a good joke and I love the way you play the whole "completely caving when the opposition shows any amount of intellectual acumen." People like you are why shitlords like the alt-right and college republicans exists. You called me straight up evil because of how I strategically vote and after about two seconds you've shifted into a sort of comfortable pseudo-nihilism of "it's just voting who cares?" Grow a loving spine man. Believe in something and do something. Say something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I do appreciate your gimmick where you are the effete liberal. It's a good joke and I love the way you play the whole "completely caving when the opposition shows any amount of intellectual acumen." People like you are why shitlords like the alt-right and college republicans exists. You called me straight up evil because of how I strategically vote and after about two seconds you've shifted into a sort of comfortable pseudo-nihilism of "it's just voting who cares?" Nah actually it's clear you're completely committed to your "someone's gonna get hurt so gently caress it, hurt people to accomplish your goals" combined with some kind of vague equivalence between inconveniencing someone or even maybe costing them money vs. maybe some whi need medicine doesn't get it, even though the latter is way worse, oh and it's ok to do that to vets because the republicans also exploit vets. You also clearly think the odds that happens from this prop.passing are super low, even though the basis of this argument is premised on that being a significant risk. I don't see any value in going back and forth with you just reiterating the same points. Yes, I think trading some vulnerable population's health for political leverage is evil. So heah, gently caress it. I'm not gonna convince you, everyone who cares has had ample opportunity to read and understand our opposing views, what the gently caress else is there to say? I haven't caved and this isn't a gimmick but if it makes you feel more satisfied to think my giving up on arguing with you is an effete signal of defeat, well, knock yourself out, dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
LOL. Have you read O'Conner's The Barber? That's like, your entire political philosophy. It's . . . not her best work. Edit: You are corncobbing worse than Dilbro man. You are better than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Never heard of it. You don't have anything like enough info to evaluate my "whole political philosophy." I've really only argued with two things: the false equivalence that since all laws cause harm (itself a premise I disagree with), one can and should dismiss whatever harm your preferred laws might cause... no need to actually evaluate how much harm is caused or distinguish between minor or acceptable "harm" and poo poo that, you know, might kill someone. And secondly, the assertion that this particular proposition's risk to veterans is definitely so minor as to not matter; I argue the actual degree of risk isn't really possible to evaluate. This isn't some kind of foundational or overwhelming principle of my "political philosophy." One thing I've vigorously argued previously in this thread is that we only get so much political capital, so we'd better spend it on laws that can actually work, rather than waste it on symbolic but ineffective laws: that was in regards to the ammo background check bill. That's also a principle I belive in, but again, isn't like, the big overriding thing that all my political beliefs stem from. This thread isn't about me, though. I post what I think is relevant to discussion of California politics. I don't have to and have no desire to derail the thread by trying to make it be about me. Whatever my political philosophy might be, is irrelevant. You and I have already stated our opinions about this prop, and whether or not it's useful or OK or whatever. I don't need to "win" and if you want to claim victory, I don't care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Never heard of it. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/10/the-barber-a-story-flannery-oconnor-never-published/280731/ There you go. It's a very good read for this election and just 4 pages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Ugh, requires me to whitelist them in adblock. This better be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Story about an inarticulate college professor struggling to find a way to argue with pig-ignorant racists in the segregation-era South, and failing. Plenty of points I can see the author trying to make. That there's not really any substitute for education; that you appeal to ignorant people with emotional arguments, not intellectual ones; that not everyone is actually equipped to argue effectively for their positions, even when they're in the right; that racism isn't just a position some people take, it's an institutionalized belief system; and that it's especially difficult to maintain your composure and argue with others when you're completely on your own and they've got their friends around to reinforce them. I don't see much relevance to this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
We can start with you throwing a hissy fit calling me "evil" many times over several paragraphs and then walking away going "It's not that serious" when I didn't collapse like the straw man you created in your head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Yeah, again, not walking away in defeat; just, it's clear you're not going to agree, and this has to be pretty loving tedious for everyone else. And I never actually called you evil. I said that you were terrible (and you are), and that the tactic you were presenting as acceptable was evil. And I elaborated on exactly what that tactic is, and you've repeatedly failed to walk back or even really defend it, beyond trying to claim that it's absurd to imagine disaster scenarios in a political discussion, ignoring that the example disaster scenario you gave is not equally likely as the actual presented disaster scenario that was considered realistically possible enough to be presented in multiple voter guides. But yes, this actual argument between me and you is fairly insignificant. Neither of our votes is going to decide this contest. That's irrelevant to the strength of the arguments, but it is a consideration when I make a decision about how much time and effort to devote to it. And to be honest I have to give it to you: you've successfully and repeatedly goaded me into engaging with you, and returning to the discussion. Maybe that's the relevance of O'Connor's story: I should recognize when an argument with a jackass is going to be completely pointless, and just not engage in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
騎虎難下 Now you are ready for Daoist Third Worldism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
At the risk of stepping into it, I appreciate the idea behind Prop 61 and think the intention is good. I, like Shbobdb, I think you have to fight fire with fire. I'm on board taking risks that Leperflesh and others might see as dangerous and evil if there is a sufficiently high probability of a critical public benefit. In this case, however, I'm skeptical that 61 is enough of a slam dunk to risk the physical health and safety of my fellow citizens. I don't think 61 is the silver bullet we need to kill off Big Pharma's stranglehold on medicine in this country and I have no faith in either the state or pro 61 groups to successfully out-spin and maneuver an extremely well connected and funded interest group of that caliber. 61 might be the only issue that I'm actually somewhat undecided on, although I'm leaning no. This is the fight we need, but 61 doesn't feel like the right tool for the job. Frankly I'm a little disappointed that the prop came out the way it did. This election could be a significant Clinton landslide and its possible enough CA Republican voters, turned off by Trump, stay at home for us to have passed more straightforward reform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Story about an inarticulate college professor struggling to find a way to argue with pig-ignorant racists in the segregation-era South, and failing. I sincerely want to say "thank you" for providing the cliffs note version of this policy piece now I don't feel guilty for not reading it and still trying to keep up with this discussion
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
cheese posted:At the risk of stepping into it, I appreciate the idea behind Prop 61 and think the intention is good. I, like Shbobdb, I think you have to fight fire with fire. I'm on board taking risks that Leperflesh and others might see as dangerous and evil if there is a sufficiently high probability of a critical public benefit. In this case, however, I'm skeptical that 61 is enough of a slam dunk to risk the physical health and safety of my fellow citizens. I don't think 61 is the silver bullet we need to kill off Big Pharma's stranglehold on medicine in this country and I have no faith in either the state or pro 61 groups to successfully out-spin and maneuver an extremely well connected and funded interest group of that caliber. That's fine. I'll vote yes. We'll balance each other out. Big Pharma has spent a lot of money but they have not put out enough actual hard evidence, which they actually have (since they manufacture the drugs and understand their costs), about why they would need to raise prices or simply stop offering certain drugs to veterans or the multitude of tools they are threatening to use. I, personally, am not convinced. How else do we determine if someone is crying wolf unless they present evidence that a wolf exists?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
The only thing that ultimately convinced me to vote yes is that drug companies have spent $$$$$$ well over documented 100 million and has probably much more in other ways too They have well paid analysts whose job is to figure out how every piece of legislation could hurt their bottom line and have decided it's worth blowing a shitton of money fighting it... so they're definitely worried and have weighed in favor for the cost of fighting it vs potential fuckery scenarios to blow it off. Which means they're still expecting to lose a lot of money one way or another and/or believe it will eventually lead to further legislation hurting them further as public starts to show support for unfucking drug prices If they didn't spend anything at all I probably would have went with no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
Xaris posted:The only thing that ultimately convinced me to vote yes is that drug companies have spent $$$$$$ well over documented 100 million and has probably much more in other ways too
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 08:43
|
|