Snafu betting parlor: Most Likable Mod

A Free And Independent Scotland.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Valhallen » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:06 am

Second round: The Fiscal Cliff

So it's a thing now. Will one or more parties playing chicken ultimately chicken out? Will the economy jump off it? Will Evel Knievel's ghost take control and make it over Recession Canyon? Same operation as last time, and keep in mind that you can win more than you bet only by forming a betting pool with others. Taking all reasonable bets related to the fiscal cliff situation with a deadline of 12PM UTC on December 24th.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Mir@k » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:11 am

somebody explain in simple terms what the unholy fuck is going on in that article.
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Saint Soul » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:27 am

The end of the Dollar based economy.
"Small muscles, big brain, the heart of a lion."
—Anthony DiNozzo on Timothy McGee
User formaly known as Soulchild
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: in the TARDIS
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Valhallen » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:09 am

Mir@k wrote:somebody explain in simple terms what the unholy fuck is going on in that article.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Marquis de Soth » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:44 am

Let's throw in 50 internets for the Right caving in for the top 2% rate hike

Another 15 internets for the Right demanding cuts to entitlements as part of the deal.

Two bets of 10 internets each for each side throwing the blame to the other side for how close we got the to cliff.
Marquis de Soth

offline
 

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Yog » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:48 am

Marquis de Soth wrote:Two bets of 50 internets each for each side throwing the blame to the other side for how close we got the to cliff.

This is mine.
Resident Old God
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:15 am
Location: The labyrinth that is my mind.
Gender: None specified

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Onizaru » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:35 am

401 internets that a decision will be made next Friday, and it will be considered a terrible decision.
Image
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 10541
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:11 am
Location: SC
Gender: None specified

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Guardian » Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:24 pm

Santa Yogs wrote:
Marquis de Soth wrote:Two bets of 50 internets each for each side throwing the blame to the other side for how close we got the to cliff.

This is mine.

And mine.
“Salvation comes with a cost. Judge us not by our methods, but by what we seek to accomplish.”

"To punish and enslave..."
Semper Vigilans
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18999
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Right behind you.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Yog » Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:30 pm

Great minds think alike.
Resident Old God
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:15 am
Location: The labyrinth that is my mind.
Gender: None specified

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Mr. Sefrol » Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:51 pm

Bets 20 internets this alone will give companies an excuse to lay off at least another 10-20 thousand jobs. Or at least lead to strikes that will cause companies to go out of business.
"Cogito, ergo es eggo." A.K.A. "I think, therefore you are a waffle."
An Optimist
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:06 pm
Location: where there's garlic
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Guardian » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:20 pm

Excuse or will?
“Salvation comes with a cost. Judge us not by our methods, but by what we seek to accomplish.”

"To punish and enslave..."
Semper Vigilans
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18999
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Right behind you.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Panty Anarchy » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:21 pm

I keep reading this thread as Fiscal Clit.
I am thou... Thou art I... From the sea of thy soul, I come...
Soulchild: u thnk evry thng stupid.
DaCrum: Warbear, why did you suddenly become pretty cool? Stop it.
BR:love is just a boner everyone is looking to fart on warbear
Slutty Angel
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: CANADA, YOU FUCKS
Gender: None specified

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Mr. Sefrol » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:54 pm

Blood Lord wrote:Excuse or will?

They will, but they'll make the excuse that with the coming event they would "have to" lay off so many people for undisclosed reasons, despite that everyone knows what said reasons are.
"Cogito, ergo es eggo." A.K.A. "I think, therefore you are a waffle."
An Optimist
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:06 pm
Location: where there's garlic
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Guardian » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:26 pm

Would the intended excuse be because they have to or want to?
“Salvation comes with a cost. Judge us not by our methods, but by what we seek to accomplish.”

"To punish and enslave..."
Semper Vigilans
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18999
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Right behind you.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Birdofterror » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:23 am

I would vote my 2 internets to something but I don't know shit about the economy, and I don't think anyone else does either. How can you understand something that by it's very definition does not exist?

All I ask is you move the
Valhallen wrote:deadline of 12PM UTC on December 24th.
To Dec. 21st on the off chance the Apocalypse will discount our bets.
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."

The Chronometal Wars, a fan-fiction taking place in the PPGD Universe. Catastrophe is the only certainty.
Bird oft Error
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:05 am
Location: You see where I am.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Valhallen » Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:16 am

Only a few hours left for betting action. Maybe it's not as exciting as last time, but whatever. I bet ten Internets on the country actually going over the cliff. I bet another ten that a deal will be reached before January 8th that will involve tax cuts and an increase to military spending.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:53 am

Is it even fair to bet that major members of both sides will be very angry regardless of how it goes down?
Because if so, 100 internets.

Also, 10 internets we pass the deadline and hit the cliff, but find some excuse to not actually incur the costs.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Valhallen » Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:00 am

To continue an earlier discussion:

Rough Giraffe wrote:
Valhallen wrote:Since the presidential ballots counted are more like 70% of registered voters instead of 140%, do you concede that your linked article is much ado about nothing?
Hm. Perhaps I jumped the gun. But why, if it does come to about 70% of registered voters, do the numbers still don't seem to add up? How do they get more than double cards cast then?
What are you talking about? The numbers are in the report I linked, so you can check for yourself. There were 123,750 ballots cast for the presidential election, and there were 123,633 ballots cast for the amendments. 247,383 cards in total were cast, which is what you get when you add 123,750 and 123,633. Do you think that 70% turnout (of 175,554 registered voters) is unusual or something?

Rough Giraffe wrote:
Valhallen wrote:To the actual liberals in the world, most of Obama's policies as implemented are indeed very conservative. For example, Obama didn't even propose single-payer health insurance as a negotiating position, while Obamacare as implemented is a huge expansion of private insurance.
You mean a huge expansion of government intervention into our lives. It gives you a somewhat one-sided choice of either paying out money for health insurance or paying out money to the government. It forces insurance companies to cover things that may be against their religion (the whole Birth Control debate, et al). It creates new "task forces" which monitor the program to see how they can cut wasteful spending. It creates several new agencies. Most of the plan is not in effect until 2014, fully effective in 2020, but meanwhile it's still legal for them to collect the tax.

Even if you like the plan or think it would be a good thing to implement, there is nothing at all "conservative" about this plan.
The modern US health care system is one of the biggest market failures in human history (a market failure is a situation where a market fails to allocate resources efficiently). It's a pretty big problem for the economy and the country which will get bigger over time if the prevailing economic environment stays the same. Presented with this, some conservatives (according to the dictionary definition I linked earlier) may prefer to do nothing if they believe that the problems caused by the market failure are less important than keeping the market as it is. That's a valid conservative ideological position. Other conservatives may prefer to tinker with the market to get it working as it was supposed to in order to protect the present system from emerging problems without changing it much. That's also a valid conservative ideological position. Some liberals may prefer to make larger changes that alter the public-private dynamic in parts of the health care system, like a public insurance option that would compete with private insurers to foster competition and help improve efficiency. Other liberals may prefer the institution of a single payer insurance program similar to those in other countries and some parts of the US health care system which operate much more efficiently than the private US insurance system (Medicare and the VA system, for example). A single payer system would also have various other benefits which some liberals would like to use to address other economic problems (like the reliance on employer-provided health insurance, which messes up the labor market).

Let's look at what Obamacare did. The insurance mandate and guaranteed issue mean that purchasers and insurers can no longer privatize profits while socializing risk (insuring only healthy people while leaving others to rely on expensive emergency room care, or going without health care when young and poor while relying on free emergency care), which correct inefficiency-causing market distortions. Establishing a common set of minimum coverage standards* does essentially the same thing from a different angle. It sets up insurance exchanges so that people can more effectively shop around, which will force insurers to compete in something more like the ideal markets invoked in rhetoric. It gets rid of the Medicare donut hole and its inefficiency-causing economic incentives. It restructures the Medicare payment system from fee-for-service to a bundled single payment based on the kind of treatment involved. This changes the motive for hospitals from maximizing profit by performing a lot of procedures to maximizing profit by efficiently curing the problem. It has regulations that reduce the cost to consumers of preventive care, and while that looks on its face to be an inefficiency-causing market intrusion, it actually seeks to bring the market more in line with the systemic costs and benefits of preventive care, which include a lot of positive externalities. TL;DR: Obamacare basically makes the existing health insurance market work more like the free market it was supposed to be, and that's a conservative way to address the health care market failure. What do you think a proper "conservative" response would have been? Can you identify a modern developed nation with a health care system that you would prefer?

Obama's liberalness has instead been on some social issues like gay rights and immigration. His economic policies are conservative pretty much down the line, albeit a more competent conservatism than what many Republicans have shown recently. For example, Obama's proposal to cap and trade carbon dioxide is very similar to HW Bush's proposal to cap and trade sulfur dioxide, which was then presented as a market-based approach to environmental protection in contrast to simply capping emissions. Cap and trade moves externalities into the market, letting the market's players move in their own ways to maximize profit in ways that better reflect the true costs and benefits of their actions, resulting in... a more efficient market. And it's been very effective for cutting sulfur dioxide emissions.

*If you want to talk about the birth control and religion issue, I'm game, but if you want to pursue this tangent, I would like you to first explain what you think went on.

Rough Giraffe wrote:
Valhallen wrote:
Rough Giraffe wrote:I think what it comes down to is a definition of Conservatism. We seem to be using different definitions.
And that's a terrible definition (not that it actually defines what Conservatism is). Conservatives don't want to pay for things they already bought (i.e. raise the debt ceiling or taxes), and they reject the notion of compromise out of hand? "...the core principles of a small government and fiscal responsibility..."?
That's a rather bad interpretation of what they wrote. Geez, it's like we're reading two entirely different pieces. Here's a snippet that may help the situation.
If you believe that murder is evil, you do not compromise and say...
The point is not "Conservatives do not compromise," and you seem to have missed it entirely.
Look closely at what it says* to extract meaning, and then have another look at what I said. This quote you gave is supposed to serve** as an example of how compromise can be bad in policy implementations, but it instead gives a case of word definitions in the context of ideology. "Murder" is essentially (so as to accommodate both legal and colloquial use) killing which is not justified by some reason recognized as good***, so compromising the position that "murder is evil" is almost as inappropriate as compromising the position that 1 + 2 = 3. It can be done, but it would require switching to a different axiomatic system (definitions of words or numbers as the case may be), and that would make the initial disagreement rather moot. Further, the desired compromise in politics is not that "conservatives" change their values, but that they be willing to accept policies that don't deliver exactly what they want. The problem here is that the essay conflates these different situations in order to excuse the refusal of "conservatives" to compromise "on things like national security, the debt and budget, and the expansion of the federal government" as reasonable, and even presents it as a noble refusal to give up their principles (and it leaves the issue without saying what "conservatives" would be willing to compromise on regarding policies).

This leads to several more problems. First, those aren't principles, they are issues, and many liberals have strong views on them as well. But anyway, it was implicit that "conservatives" believe that national security should be strong, the debt should be small, the budget should be balanced, and the federal government should not be large (keep in mind that many liberals agree with these in principle). However, these ideas must compromise with each other before "conservatives" can refuse to compromise with liberals on policies. For example, strong national security requires a rather large federal government that spends a lot of money, and if a growing debt is to be avoided, it needs to pay for that with taxes (meaning a lot of revenue and bureaucracy, which would make the federal government large in another way). Likewise, paying down the debt requires the federal government to get the money to do so above and beyond its other financial needs.

Now let's look at how this translates to policies by changing that quote above to reflect an actual policy dispute: "If you believe that raising taxes is evil, you do not compromise and say, 'Well, I think that the top marginal income tax rate should be 35%, and you think it should be 39.6%, therefore we should compromise and set it to some value in between.'" And lo and behold, lots of people are treating such small differences in policy as huge, ideologically reprehensible actions that must never be compromised with, almost as if they regard it as a moral principle that taxes should never be raised. Let's look at the debt ceiling. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling represents Congress refusing to allow the Executive branch to pay for things that Congress told it to do. Historically, votes on raising the debt ceiling were a time for political posturing, but the ceiling was always raised without holding the country hostage by refusing to allow the raise unless certain other legislation was attached. Lately, Congressional Republicans haven't had the votes to advance their agenda normally, so they have taken to refusing to allow the debt ceiling to be raised unless Democrats agree to everything they ask to be attached to it (and sometimes, more than what they asked).

As for fiscal responsibility and small government, do you think that self-described "conservatives" have a good track record on that? The conflation of ideology and policy has let "conservatives" talk about how their ideas are successful, responsible, or otherwise good while ignoring real-world consequences (after all, you might check policies for effectiveness, but ideologies are rarely results-tested). What do you think a responsible change to fiscal policy would look like at a time with low taxes and flat spending if the goal is to reduce the deficit / debt? Remember how the Progressive Caucus budget proposal was much better at achieving that than any "conservative" proposal? Remember how Romney wanted to substantially increase the defense budget to meet an arbitrary target when the DoD wasn't asking for it? Remember who pushed drug testing for welfare recipients nominally to save taxpayers' money and prevent drug use, which ended up costing a lot more than it saved? Are you prepared to evaluate your thoughts of "Conservatism" on facts?

*It still doesn't define what "Conservatism" is, and neither have you. I'd appreciate it if you would, or alternately use different words to convey your meaning so that we can move on from this point.

**Yes, it points out that it is "And [sic] absurd example," but it claims that "it makes a solid point." Reduction to absurdity can be logically valid, but that's not what this is.

***Determining whether or not one person "murdered" another in court is often not a matter of whether or not the action took place, but whether or not it was justified. Likewise, in arguments about things like whether or not abortion or eating animals is murder, the disagreement is not whether killing takes place but whether it is justified somehow so as to make it acceptable.

Rough Giraffe wrote:Are you not guilty of having steadfast ideology as well? Every time we debate, you always think your way is right, do you not? And if I offer a position counter to it, do you ALWAYS compromise between your position and mine? And if not, how do you differ from a Conservative such as how you describe above?
I have been arguing with you about facts, definitions, and analysis, not ideology. I think that my positions there are factually correct and well-reasoned, and if faced with a disagreement there, they are not the sort of thing which is proper to compromise. You could in principle convince me that I am wrong and should therefore adopt different positions, but that's not a compromise. For example, the questions of how taxes affect revenue and economic growth in the real world are matters of fact. When things are working properly, someone wishing to follow an ideology examines the facts and considers what actions best accomplish what is most important according to the ideology. Suppose we manage to agree on the effects of taxes. We may well disagree about what rates and overall structure would be best, because we may use different values to score the results of various policies. I haven't argued this sort of thing with you because we're not in a position where we need to form an agreement on them. If we somehow did end up in a position of having to reach an agreement on policies, I'd be willing to compromise if you were (if we each had similar leverage, we'd probably end up near the middle of our starting points). That's quite a different thing from compromising an ideology. I wonder if you can even describe my ideology from what I've said thus far.

Rough Giraffe wrote:
Valhallen wrote:I think that DaCrum was using something more like the dictionary definition: "1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."
Or rather, might we say we are trying to conserve virtue, in a time where, just as an example, personal virtue is often cast aside to find a scapegoat for one's hardships?
You might, but I don't think that's what DaCrum was saying. Also keep in mind that "conservatives" do not have a monopoly on virtue.

Rough Giraffe wrote:
Valhallen wrote:Please read that big post of mine. it really is terribly relevant.
Rather, I started working on it, but never got around to finish. Relevance aside, it is also extremely long. I suppose if I answer something here I can cut it from the other reply?
I've mentioned before that I don't really care whether or not you respond to everything I say, but I would like the responses you do make to be well-made. Also, relevant to this particular issue, I would appreciate it if you would respond to a point I've made before you repeat the thing that I had responded to, as it's getting kind of repetitive. It would also help reduce the size of future posts.

Rough Giraffe wrote:
Valhallen wrote:He's been President for almost four years now. If he really wanted to restrict gun rights, why wouldn't he do it in his first term rather than waiting for and gambling on the availability of a second term?
I really, seriously hope I am wrong on this one. I hope it does not happen. But, IF it does happen... will you still support Obama?
It depends on what he does. Something like reinstating the assault weapon ban would be good, particularly limitations on magazine size. Something like an executive order repealing the Second Amendment followed by having the FBI confiscate everyone's guns would be bad. Which do you think is more likely?

Grey wrote:
Valhallen wrote:He's been President for almost four years now. If he really wanted to restrict gun rights, why wouldn't he do it in his first term rather than waiting for and gambling on the availability of a second term?
to be fair, isn't it rather typical for presidents to leave more radical changes 'til the fairly likely second term? because then they don't have to worry about re-election because it ain't happenin anyway
Only if they regard them as a few more things to check off the to-do list. If something is a priority going in, presidents typically try to do it in the first term both to avoid waiting (since it's a priority) and to avoid the risk of not having a second term in which to get it done. Look at what W Bush did in his first term: the major tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, the Iraq war, and Medicare Part D. The national security things like warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention without trial were also in his first term, though he probably didn't plan on them going into office.

Blood Lord wrote:What Grey said.

Plus Obama isn't going to go directly after guns. He'd go after the ammunition, raising taxes on them and the equipment needed to reload rounds.
And how did you reach this conclusion?

Q.U. wrote:It's always been odd to me how these pro-gun people can rationalise and quantify the amount of "responsibility" they are permitted. For example, when it comes to weapons, in the most broad definition, there seems to be a bilateral agreement that it should be illegal for civilians to have the right to buy or possess nuclear weapons. Because clearly any device that can kill more than 1 000 000 people in one go is too dangerous to be trusted to civilians. Same issue with ballistic missiles, so even a device that can kill ~300 people in one go is illegal for civilians. Then the opinions become more varied as you go down to rocket launchers, RPGs, flame throwers, grenades, other explosives, and all the way down to assault rifles, mortars, multi-round shotguns, tripod/mounted chainguns/gatling guns. Then grenade launchers, sniper rifles, automatic and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, incendiary ammo, hunting rifles, handguns and revolvers. Finally down to military knives, shivs, and other lethal white weapons.
I'd love it if all the people who support the right to bear arms, any arms, in any amounts, to define and specify their stance for me. How destructive and lethal does the weapon have to be before we no longer trust the public with handling it? Where's the tipping point? And why? I'd really love to know how everybody rationalises their stance on this one. Even though it seems a little bit off topic by now, I hope Val doesn't hurt me for this later. But I think it's an interesting question to raise, and I'd love to hear responses.
Flame throwers, sniper rifles, and "military" knives are not very viable targets of high levels of restriction. Flamethrowers are widely legal in the US (they are easy to make and have a bunch of legitimate civilian uses). There isn't much difference between sniper and hunting rifles (they are both typically high-power, bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles made to be precise at long range - "sniper" was originally used to refer to a person proficient in snipe hunting). And knives are really easy to make - I could make a military-style knife (if not a particularly good one) in a few hours at home.

But anyway, the line between legality and illegality is based on several things, including the killing power of the weapon, its civilian uses, and the practicality of limiting access. For example, ANFO bombs can easily kill a lot of people, but its main components are widely used fertilizer and fuel. Making such bombs is illegal, but they're not a big enough problem that there are many safeguards in place about getting the components, and that's probably about right. Automatic weapons can kill a lot of people, the equipment to make them is not very easy to come by covertly, and they are heavily restricted for civilians, which is probably about right. Semi-automatic guns (particularly rifles) are something of a borderline case IMO, and could use some increased regulation like smaller limits on magazine size (I don't really care about the other features identified in the "assault weapon" ban). I don't have much of an issue with non-automatic guns and shotguns being widely available for civilians, but I think that things like waiting periods, background checks, certification, and limitations on where guns can be taken should be made robust enough to weed out most likely problems. There are currently some restrictions on blunt and bladed weapons like brass knuckles and switchblades, but such things are so easy to make that preemptive law enforcement is all but impossible. And I don't think that they are dangerous enough (especially compared to other weapons and legal things) to warrant general bans in the first place. This would make spree killings a little more difficult, but it wouldn't have much effect on most violent crime, which I think is better addressed by things like law enforcement, economic incentives, and strengthening the mental health care system.

Birdofterror wrote:We have gone too far down the path of free arms to go back now. If we outlaw guns, outlaws will have guns. Unfortunate truth.
Yes, but the part which most people don't mention is that if they can't purchase guns legally, a lot fewer criminals will have guns. As a matter of costs and benefits, many criminals would switch to other weapons, especially ones without black market contacts. Gun crime would go down, whether or not overall violent crime would. But that's largely moot since something like a blanket civilian gun ban is not going to happen in the US.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Q.U. » Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:11 am

Valhallen wrote:Flame throwers, sniper rifles, and "military" knives are not very viable targets of high levels of restriction. Flamethrowers are widely legal in the US (they are easy to make and have a bunch of legitimate civilian uses). There isn't much difference between sniper and hunting rifles (they are both typically high-power, bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles made to be precise at long range - "sniper" was originally used to refer to a person proficient in snipe hunting). And knives are really easy to make - I could make a military-style knife (if not a particularly good one) in a few hours at home.

But you must admit, the level of difficulty of producing or assembling a device or substance, while it should, does not usually affect it's legality. I mean, most drugs are quite easy to make, pot is relatively easy to grow for example.

Valhallen wrote:But anyway, the line between legality and illegality is based on several things, including the killing power of the weapon, its civilian uses, and the practicality of limiting access. For example, ANFO bombs can easily kill a lot of people, but its main components are widely used fertilizer and fuel. Making such bombs is illegal, but they're not a big enough problem that there are many safeguards in place about getting the components, and that's probably about right. Automatic weapons can kill a lot of people, the equipment to make them is not very easy to come by covertly, and they are heavily restricted for civilians, which is probably about right. Semi-automatic guns (particularly rifles) are something of a borderline case IMO, and could use some increased regulation like smaller limits on magazine size (I don't really care about the other features identified in the "assault weapon" ban). I don't have much of an issue with non-automatic guns and shotguns being widely available for civilians, but I think that things like waiting periods, background checks, certification, and limitations on where guns can be taken should be made robust enough to weed out most likely problems. There are currently some restrictions on blunt and bladed weapons like brass knuckles and switchblades, but such things are so easy to make that preemptive law enforcement is all but impossible. And I don't think that they are dangerous enough (especially compared to other weapons and legal things) to warrant general bans in the first place. This would make spree killings a little more difficult, but it wouldn't have much effect on most violent crime, which I think is better addressed by things like law enforcement, economic incentives, and strengthening the mental health care system.

Naturally, law enforcement is the key factor here, to which I agree. In fact, the very reason why most civilians buy firearms is for protection, which is generally supposed to be provided by the law enforcement. Since people feel threatened enough to buy guns, it signals that the law enforcement does not fulfil it's purpose.

So you've listed killing power and civilian uses. Now I don't think it would be reasonable to ask you to define the default permitted "killing power" in #human lives/hour, because it would mean asking you to wager the risk of losing a certain number of lives against the benefits of allowing weapon ownership. Which I can imagine to be difficult.

Which is why I personally think the legality should be restricted by the designed purpose of the device, and not some arbitrary value of "killing power". Which is both difficult to measure, estimate, and determine, as well as to compare and convert into any other meaningful numerics.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Mir@k » Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:32 pm

Q.U. wrote:pot is relatively easy to grow for example.
yes this is true
i know squat about gardening and i grow pot ºuº
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Yog » Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:47 pm

Mir@k wrote:
Q.U. wrote:pot is relatively easy to grow for example.
yes this is true
i know squat about gardening and i grow pot ºuº

Ditto.

Though, that applies to most buds, there are some that are a bit tricky.
Resident Old God
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:15 am
Location: The labyrinth that is my mind.
Gender: None specified

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Q.U. » Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:10 pm

To be honest, I think that the main problem the USA faces is not the amount or type of legally permitted guns, but their gun-culture. For some odd reason, they are terrified of their government and it's power/control. They believe that they need guns and the 2nd amendment in order to be able to fight and overthrow the corrupt government should it go too far, all while ignoring the fact that in a potential civil war scenario they would be ridiculously out-gunned no matter how many rifles/machine guns they own and how many men, women, and children they arm up with them. Going up against the government which controls their whole army, an arsenal of carriers, battleships, submarines, fighter jets and stealth bombers, predator drones, intelligent missiles, and even tactical nuclear devices. What do they think they could accomplish with some guns there is beyond my ability to imagine (other than some kind of partisan warfare/resistance, but we've seen examples of that all over the world, and it never works out without a significant amount of help from an influential outside 3rd party). As if they could even dent the "power of the government" unless the government itself would allow them to do so. And what's even more disappointing, is that they keep boasting their superior freedom and excellent political and economic systems (capitalism and federal democracy), and yet they distrust it so much that they never cease their preparations to waging a war with it. It is both odd and disturbing to me how little faith and trust the American people have in their government, and thus in their democratic system, and how naive they are to claim that they could actually stand a chance against it in an open civil war. And yet, that is one of the more common reason I hear quoted in support of legally owned firearms.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Mir@k » Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:16 pm

Fucking acapulco gold is a BITCH to grow in autumn and winter
I hate chem dog with a passion
Sour diesel is quite nice for winter!
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Yog » Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:54 pm

Trainwreck, man.

Fuck.

Might as well be pulling out teeth.
Resident Old God
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:15 am
Location: The labyrinth that is my mind.
Gender: None specified

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Fiscal Cliff

Postby Valhallen » Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:52 am

Betting is closed! Let's see what we have.



Republicans agree to a deal which includes an increase on the top income tax rate. Soth 50

Republicans demand entitlement cuts in such a deal. Soth 15

Democrats blame Republicans for getting close to the cliff. Soth 10, Yog 50, BL 50

Republicans blame Democrats for getting close to the cliff. Soth 10, Yog 50, BL 50

A decision (widely considered terrible) will be made by Friday December 14. Onizaru 401

The crisis "alone" will give companies an excuse to lay off 10-20k people, or lead to strikes that cause companies to go out of business. Sefrai 20

Major members of both parties will be very angry with whatever happens. Neo 100

The cliff comes into effect, but a deal is reached quickly that is perceived as avoiding the costs of the cliff. Neo 10



There aren't any pools, so we'll have to see who loses the least rather than who wins the most.



As for the discussion:
Q.U. wrote:But you must admit, the level of difficulty of producing or assembling a device or substance, while it should, does not usually affect it's legality. I mean, most drugs are quite easy to make, pot is relatively easy to grow for example.
And the failure of efforts to cut off supply is a point in the arguments for legalization. Consider alcohol. It's much easier to make than other drugs (prisoners make it widely in prisons, for example). Prohibition failed because people still wanted to drink and it was really easy to make illicitly. Prohibition was ended after enough people acknowledged that it was futile and largely counterproductive.

Q.U. wrote:Naturally, law enforcement is the key factor here, to which I agree. In fact, the very reason why most civilians buy firearms is for protection, which is generally supposed to be provided by the law enforcement. Since people feel threatened enough to buy guns, it signals that the law enforcement does not fulfil it's purpose.
Besides hunting (which is a major part of the culture in some places), it's something of an ideological issue here. It's not so much that people think that law enforcement isn't doing its job, it's that people think that they ought to be able to defend themselves (with firearms), whether or not doing so is ultimately necessary. It's related to the greater emphasis here on individual freedom and risk that has run against things like the social safety net and national health care.

Q.U. wrote:So you've listed killing power and civilian uses. Now I don't think it would be reasonable to ask you to define the default permitted "killing power" in #human lives/hour, because it would mean asking you to wager the risk of losing a certain number of lives against the benefits of allowing weapon ownership. Which I can imagine to be difficult.
I would define it as follows: the killing power of a weapon is the number of people a person can be expected to kill if the weapon is used in an attempted killing spree / mass murder (that is, people killed before being stopped, not per hour). As it happens, people keep track of what weapons are used in killing sprees, and some are more lethal than others. And as a matter of policy, lives are weighed against benefits all the time. About 90 people die in car crashes in the US in an average day (about three times as many as are killed by guns, discounting suicide), but the advantages of cars mean that very few people want to severely restrict their access on that ground. Weighing the benefits of allowing weapon ownership against lives comes with the territory of gun control. Killing sprees, the "killing power" of weapons, and the benefits of civilian use have little relation to most weapon-related deaths (which are accidents, suicides, or small-scale killings), but they do relate to which weapons are considered too dangerous for the general public to have with little restriction.

Q.U. wrote:Which is why I personally think the legality should be restricted by the designed purpose of the device, and not some arbitrary value of "killing power". Which is both difficult to measure, estimate, and determine, as well as to compare and convert into any other meaningful numerics.
And yet considerations of "killing power" can in principle produce consistent regulation across different kinds of weapons, while "designated purpose" can not. Under your proposal (I assume you mean that devices designed for the purpose of killing humans should be restricted), things like a KA-BAR (based on hunting utility knife designs) would be legal while things like the Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife (designed only for combat) would be illegal despite similar potential for abuse. The Colt Peacemaker (single-action military revolver) and M1903 Springfield (bolt-action military rifle) would be illegal while much-more-dangerous semi-automatic hunting rifles would be legal. As an extreme case, enriched uranium from civilian nuclear reactors would be legal, while depleted uranium from military ammunition would not.

Q.U. wrote:To be honest, I think that the main problem the USA faces is not the amount or type of legally permitted guns, but their gun-culture. For some odd reason, they are terrified of their government and it's power/control. They believe that they need guns and the 2nd amendment in order to be able to fight and overthrow the corrupt government should it go too far, all while ignoring the fact that in a potential civil war scenario they would be ridiculously out-gunned no matter how many rifles/machine guns they own and how many men, women, and children they arm up with them. Going up against the government which controls their whole army, an arsenal of carriers, battleships, submarines, fighter jets and stealth bombers, predator drones, intelligent missiles, and even tactical nuclear devices. What do they think they could accomplish with some guns there is beyond my ability to imagine (other than some kind of partisan warfare/resistance, but we've seen examples of that all over the world, and it never works out without a significant amount of help from an influential outside 3rd party). As if they could even dent the "power of the government" unless the government itself would allow them to do so.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to this line of argument (which does sometimes range into crazy territory), it's not so much about being able to overthrow the government as being able to take care of themselves given an imperfect government. So suppose there are hostile Indians nearby (or Loyalists, bandits, gangsters, gangs, illegal immigrants, or generic undesirables), and the government isn't addressing perceived problems. People can get together and form a militia / posse / neighborhood watch and use the force of arms to deal with the problem themselves. Historically, though this has involved a lot of morally questionable and / or illegal activity, it has been an important mechanism for maintaining order in areas with little state / federal police presence. Like with personal weapons above, it's in many cases more about the idea of people being able to to that than their actually having a practical need to do so.

Q.U. wrote:And what's even more disappointing, is that they keep boasting their superior freedom and excellent political and economic systems (capitalism and federal democracy), and yet they distrust it so much that they never cease their preparations to waging a war with it. It is both odd and disturbing to me how little faith and trust the American people have in their government, and thus in their democratic system, and how naive they are to claim that they could actually stand a chance against it in an open civil war. And yet, that is one of the more common reason I hear quoted in support of legally owned firearms.
To a large extent, that's just doublethink resulting from decades of propaganda for / against different targets without much effort to make it consistent. And it's not so much a distrust of the government per se, it's more an idea that the self-evidently perfect capitalistic democratic system has been compromised to some degree by evil people (political opponents and / or socialists) who are trying to destroy America and just might do it if Real, True Americans like them aren't vigilant. The use of an ideological rather than empirical framework lets them avoid having to reconcile views like that with a reality that they might find uncomfortable and complex. Few people actually live as if they believe things like that.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Central Compton Botanical Gardens

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron