Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

All of this does matter-- maybe not to you personally, but nonetheless, it does.

---

No, it really doesn't. By "all of this" I assume you mean the murder/non-murder question. It doesn't matter because it's not a factor that affects policy. People who think it's murder are merely expressing an opinion. It's no more meaningful than me saying "ninja turtles are cool"

Abortion policy, at least presently, hinges on the question of bodily autonomy. Does the baby have a right to use a woman's uterus without the woman's permission? Bodily autonomy is something codified into law. The notion that life begins at conception is not. Debates over the former influence policy. Debates over the latter are just arguments of clashing opinions. One matters. One doesn't.

I feel like we're gonna down a rabbit-hole of "what's the definition of 'matters'?" I really don't wanna do that. I just hope it's obvious that discussions surrounding the implementing of laws "matter". Discussions about which Batman was best, who shot JR, or how to bend the definition of words don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

government-funded eugenics through Planned Parenthood.

---

Exactly $0 of the government's funding for Planned Parenthood is allowed to be used for abortion services, by law.
My lady does marketing for Planned Parenthood in St Louis. There are multiple business entities under the umbrella of Planned Parenthood, and the wing that does ER services (including abortions) is financially distinct from all other aspects of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood does so much more than merely abortions. They cover all kinds of sexual health needs, including checkups and classes for men.
Who'd have thunk it.

I have a brother because my mom was considering abortion, and went to Planned Parenthood and learned about all of the support services that were available to her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Exactly $0 of the government's funding for Planned Parenthood is allowed to be used for abortion services, by law.

---

Source? I'm extremely skeptical of this. If this were actually the case, it's hard to believe that national political discourse would include a controversy over the funding of planned parenthood.

Though if this is true, PP would be extremely well-served by taking my advice and changing the name to "Uncle Sam's Vagina Wash"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No but we moved on to morality in an effort to justify the use of the word "murder". You have to think abortion is immoral to think abortion is murder, otherwise you're claiming you think abortion is illegal... unless of course abortion is illegal, in which case it is murder because then it fits the definition.

If you don't think murder is immoral, fine. But you can't pretend to think murder is legal.

---

The bold is not true. Moreover, you're continuing on the "let's argue about what murder means" path that no one else is on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Exactly $0 of the government's funding for Planned Parenthood is allowed to be used for abortion services, by law.
My lady does marketing for Planned Parenthood in St Louis. There are multiple business entities under the umbrella of Planned Parenthood, and the wing that does ER services (including abortions) is financially distinct from all other aspects of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood does so much more than merely abortions. They cover all kinds of sexual health needs, including checkups and classes for men.
Who'd have thunk it.

I have a brother because my mom was considering abortion, and went to Planned Parenthood and learned about all of the support services that were available to her.

---

Thank you for paraphrasing all of the left's talking points on Planned Parenthood. None of them refute that Planned Parenthood is government-funded eugenics.

For clarity: I am not against Planned Parenthood or anything they do. I am against them receiving tax dollars.

Also, and I mean this genuinely and not a knock on you, but you may want to consider using a different phrasing than "my lady" since that sounds autistic as fuck, no offense. I just see you do it often, and I cringe every time. That's the type of small thing that can help you to make better impressions in work, social life, etc. and make your life go smoother.

To tie this back into Christianity, killing babies is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Exactly $0 of the government's funding for Planned Parenthood is allowed to be used for abortion services, by law.

---

Any government funding for PP means that some of it is probably going to abortion even if the line of sight isn't direct. This is because all spending decisions are marginal and come from the same pool of possible spending decisions. The pool of resources to cover the possible spending decisions are allocated first to the spending with the greatest marginal benefit, second to those with the second greatest marginal benefit, etc..

If PP has a budget of $10, where funding consists of $2 from government and $8 elsewhere, without restrictions, the two funding sources are essentially merged and put to pay for the $10 of services. If the budget is deconstructed to pap smears ($5) and abortions ($5) and the law says no government funding can go to abortion, PP then pays for the pap smears with the $2 from government and $3 from elsewhere, and pays for the abortions with the remaining $5 from elsewhere. As we see, a change in the law regarding allocation didn't change the funding for abortions. If, however, the government stopped funding PP altogether, PP would have only $8 and would have to cut its spending. It would do so based on the marginal assessment characterized above. Unless abortions are valued more highly than pap smears such that PP would rather lose $2 of pap smears to keep all $5 of abortions, abortions would decline.

The only way to make it so that no taxes go to abortions is to make it so that institutions that produce abortions get $0 funding from the government. Furthermore, that means that consumers of abortions also need to get $0 funding from the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The only way to make it so that no taxes go to abortions is to make it so that institutions that produce abortions get $0 funding from the government. Furthermore, that means that consumers of abortions also need to get $0 funding from the government.

---

This also creates a hole in the market. There will be a demand for subsidization of the stuff that PP does.

Charities are really good at fixing problems like this. Governments, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

The bold is not true. Moreover, you're continuing on the "let's argue about what murder means" path that no one else is on.

---

Right, because I'm the only person who realise it's actually pretty important.

What the fuck do you mean when you say "abortion is murder"? If you're saying neither "it's immoral killing" nor "it's unlawful killing", then what are you saying? Are you all using a different meaning of the word "murder"? Perhaps it's like a bunch of fucking crows, yeah abortion is murder because it's plural.

Forigve me for not knowing what it is you're saying when you're using alternate defintions that only I seem to be unaware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

This also creates a hole in the market. There will be a demand for subsidization of the stuff that PP does.

Charities are really good at fixing problems like this. Governments, not so much.

---

Yup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Right, because I'm the only person who realise it's actually pretty important.

What the fuck do you mean when you say "abortion is murder"? If you're saying neither "it's immoral killing" nor "it's unlawful killing", then what are you saying? Are you all using a different meaning of the word "murder"? Perhaps it's like a bunch of fucking crows, yeah abortion is murder because it's plural.

Forigve me for not knowing what it is you're saying when you're using alternate defintions that only I seem to be unaware of.

---

Go play with your logs while the grown-ups are talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Go play with your logs while the grown-ups are talking.

---

Hangman time...

Phrase

---- ---

I just put another log on the fire. I guess I murdered it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Hangman time...

Phrase

---- ---

---

Q

Also, hangman is inherently racist because it's done in black ink.

Spoon, you're wrong wrt your use of murder and it's kinda sad to see you not be able to let go of this single small point. I think there are some interesting points of disagreement, but this is not one of them. The fact that you are clinging to this makes it impossible for people to believe you'll discuss any other points in good faith.

I don't really disagree about the "My lady" thing. I wouldn't have thought to mention it, but yeah, sure, it's a tad odd. But your insistence on this being an appropriate use of "murder" puts you squarely on the spectrum. "Abortion is murder" is your "My lady."

He knows he's wrong, that's why he slapped me down instead of using words effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Any government funding for PP means that some of it is probably going to abortion even if the line of sight isn't direct. This is because all spending decisions are marginal and come from the same pool of possible spending decisions. The pool of resources to cover the possible spending decisions are allocated first to the spending with the greatest marginal benefit, second to those with the second greatest marginal benefit, etc..

If PP has a budget of $10, where funding consists of $2 from government and $8 elsewhere, without restrictions, the two funding sources are essentially merged and put to pay for the $10 of services. If the budget is deconstructed to pap smears ($5) and abortions ($5) and the law says no government funding can go to abortion, PP then pays for the pap smears with the $2 from government and $3 from elsewhere, and pays for the abortions with the remaining $5 from elsewhere. As we see, a change in the law regarding allocation didn't change the funding for abortions. If, however, the government stopped funding PP altogether, PP would have only $8 and would have to cut its spending. It would do so based on the marginal assessment characterized above. Unless abortions are valued more highly than pap smears such that PP would rather lose $2 of pap smears to keep all $5 of abortions, abortions would decline.

The only way to make it so that no taxes go to abortions is to make it so that institutions that produce abortions get $0 funding from the government. Furthermore, that means that consumers of abortions also need to get $0 funding from the government.

---

This is a simplistic way of understanding organizational structure and accounting. It can be true, but it is not necessarily so. There is legal precedent on this. Different parts of an organization can be financially segregated to a degree to which this is a non issue.

Absolute financial segregation is a myth. I don't just mean within a legally recognized corporate organization, I mean in the absolute sense. If abortion is legal, any funding given to any entity will eventually fund abortion. As illustration, take a strip mall that holds an abortion clinic as a tenant. The other tenants rents are being suppressed due to a decrease in vacancy.

I do appreciate that you ended with an acknowledgement of how absurd your reading of the law is. A woman that gets an abortion should not be eligible for public scholarships, her children should not be admitted to public school, she should not be allowed to ride public transit, etc. Do we get to apply this logic to similar cases? The government should not be funding religious institutions, therefore it follows that a priest should be shunned in the same way as the woman whose had an abortion.

Also, when does the ban from government funding happen? Does it last for a set period of time? Her whole life? Wouldn't it make more sense for her to owe the government for all of the assistance she's received so far in life which allowed her the financial flexibility to chose abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Spoon, you're wrong wrt your use of murder and it's kinda sad to see you not be able to let go of this single small point. I think there are some interesting points of disagreement, but this is not one of them. The fact that you are clinging to this makes it impossible for people to believe you'll discuss any other points in good faith.

I don't really disagree about the "My lady" thing. I wouldn't have thought to mention it, but yeah, sure, it's a tad odd. But your insistence on this being an appropriate use of "murder" puts you squarely on the spectrum. "Abortion is murder" is your "My lady."

---

Abortion is murder. It's illegal. Do you want to move on, or do you want to keep repeating various permutations of the definition of abortion and "Aha!" over and over again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

I do appreciate that you ended with an acknowledgement of how absurd your reading of the law is

---

I don't think that's what he was doing. I interpreted his last sentence to mean that programs like medicaid should also not cover abortion.

Now I know what you're thinking.....if it doesn't cover abortions, then medicaid shouldn't cover birth control pills either. Stop thinking that.

It is simply erroneous to start drawing parallels between abortion, and anything else. For whatever reason, abortion is "the big one". It's completely appropriate to treat it as something radioactive that needs to be quarantined from every other issue.

The rest of your post seems to basically claim that maintaining a road where a clinic resides effectively equals government funding of abortion. Nonsense. You're discussing abortion as if there is a slippery slope that leads to all kinds of other shit. There isn't. There is no slope, slippery or otherwise, that connects abortion to other issues.

it stands alone. This isn't my opinion either. It's the consensus of decades of public discourse on the topic. Abortion is an issue that gets special treatment. You'll find it's a lot easier to find common ground with the other side (no matter which side you're on) if you just accept this reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

This is a simplistic way of understanding organizational structure and accounting. It can be true, but it is not necessarily so. There is legal precedent on this. Different parts of an organization can be financially segregated to a degree to which this is a non issue.

Absolute financial segregation is a myth. I don't just mean within a legally recognized corporate organization, I mean in the absolute sense. If abortion is legal, any funding given to any entity will eventually fund abortion. As illustration, take a strip mall that holds an abortion clinic as a tenant. The other tenants rents are being suppressed due to a decrease in vacancy.

---

I'm happy to see that you're thinking in conceptual terms that need to be thought in. I don't have much input on this because finding an answer is unbelievably hard. In fact I don't think there is an answer.

Where do we draw the line? I don't know, probably where people want to draw the line. The concept I laid out regarding budgeting is pretty well modeled in economics, so I think it is reasonable to say that a law that says certain fund sources can't be used for certain things doesn't change much of the funding of those certain things since moving funds around to keep things the way they have been is pretty common. Economists have tried to study this a bit with food stamps, where the models say that making it illegal for this form of welfare to be used on alcohol and cigarettes shouldn't negatively impact consumption of such since the food stamp collectors will just move their funds around, spending less cash on food than they would otherwise since they can use stamps for food, letting them consume the same amount (sometimes more) of alcohol and cigarettes. The empirical results are mixed, as they always are in economics. I don't know any models that suggest what I described wouldn't be the case.

Quote:

---

I do appreciate that you ended with an acknowledgement of how absurd your reading of the law is.

---

I wouldn't say that's absurd, but more the next step in logic to be taken even though it gets into "throw your hands up in the air" territory, where solving the problem has no easy or good answers.

Cool to note about this is that this type of problem is a good reason why it is better to restrict government intervention. This is because a democratic government has a duality of responsibilities that it cannot meet. For example, you mentioned public schools. A sufficiently intervened by government education system (which we have) means that the government has the responsibility to provide that service for all citizens. Yet, it is also the case that doing that means that those who fund it (taxpayers) are coerced into paying for things they do not want. Reducing government impact into lives and increasing the freedom of choice reduces this problem because it allows people to more effectively allocate their own resources to what they believe in.

The problem never goes away in entirety though. It's sorta like one of the premises of Loki's Wager. You can't say where the neck ends and the head begins, so you can't perfectly separate them no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I don't think that's what he was doing. I interpreted his last sentence to mean that programs like medicaid should also not cover abortion.

---

I was getting at the fact that if a person is on welfare and pays for an abortion, then iterating this scenario over time, across the population, and on average, means that a portion of taxes have probably gone to abortion because some abortions were likely had only on the margin that the person can fund her budget with welfare.

This point is true before going a step above like boost did, the infinite regression of causality, which is worth thinking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Abortion is murder. It's illegal. Do you want to move on, or do you want to keep repeating various permutations of the definition of abortion and "Aha!" over and over again?

---

This is a sad side of you. Attack troll spoon is at least entertaining to watch. Defense troll spoon is just pure cringepity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Where do we draw the line? I don't know, probably where people want to draw the line. The concept I laid out regarding budgeting is pretty well modeled in economics, so I think it is reasonable to say that a law that says certain fund sources can't be used for certain things doesn't change much of the funding of those certain things since moving funds around to keep things the way they have been is pretty common. Economists have tried to study this a bit with food stamps, where the models say that making it illegal for this form of welfare to be used on alcohol and cigarettes shouldn't negatively impact consumption of such since the food stamp collectors will just move their funds around, spending less cash on food than they would otherwise since they can use stamps for food, letting them consume the same amount (sometimes more) of alcohol and cigarettes. The empirical results are mixed, as they always are in economics. I don't know any models that suggest what I described wouldn't be the case.

---

I should correct this. The models and studies are mostly about the difference in consumption choices between using cash transfers or food stamps. The models suggest using food stamps (that can't be used on alc/cigs) instead of cash transfers (that can be used on alc/cigs) would unlikely have any impact on consumption of alc/cigs. This is because recipients of cash transfers will consume what they want evenly across their total cash, and recipients who get food stamps instead tend to move the alc/cigs consumption to their other cash and move more of their food consumption to food stamps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I should correct this. The models and studies are mostly about the difference in consumption choices between using cash transfers or food stamps. The models suggest using food stamps (that can't be used on alc/cigs) instead of cash transfers (that can be used on alc/cigs) would unlikely have any impact on consumption of alc/cigs. This is because recipients of cash transfers will consume what they want evenly across their total cash, and recipients who get food stamps instead tend to move the alc/cigs consumption to their other cash and move more of their food consumption to food stamps.

---

Even as regulations get more stringent, the welfare recipients who are targeted specifically to not abuse the system tend to develop clever ways of getting around the rules. One way is trading their food stamps at a discount on the black market for alc/cigs/drugs/cash

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I was getting at the fact that if a person is on welfare and pays for an abortion, then iterating this scenario over time, across the population, and on average, means that a portion of taxes have probably gone to abortion because some abortions were likely had only on the margin that the person can fund her budget with welfare.

This point is true before going a step above like boost did, the infinite regression of causality, which is worth thinking about.

---

Yeah man, I think this is where your ideology gets in the way of you discussing practical matters. It's fine that you think the government ultimately does not have a right to tax (if this is even your position.. it's hard to keep track of), but that's not what you were arguing. It wouldn't even make sense to argue the subsidising of abortions point if government is not subsidizing anything.

Let's shift your logic elsewhere for illustrative purposes. The second amendment is law, but it is very controversial. Therefore the government should not be subsidizing gun purchases. People who purchase guns should be barred from receiving any government assistance.

It's an absurd argument. You cannot find the thresholds of reason outside of a pragmatic argument, which results in "the government should not directly subsidize X"

Ideology has a way of blinding us to pragmatism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Even as regulations get more stringent, the welfare recipients who are targeted specifically to not abuse the system tend to develop clever ways of getting around the rules. One way is trading their food stamps at a discount on the black market for alc/cigs/drugs/cash

---

Not that you were accusing me of being in favor of the current welfare system, but I think intuitively it makes sense and the data is coming in in support of no strings attached welfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Yeah man, I think this is where your ideology gets in the way of you discussing practical matters. It's fine that you think the government ultimately does not have a right to tax (if this is even your position.. it's hard to keep track of), but that's not what you were arguing. It wouldn't even make sense to argue the subsidising of abortions point if government is not subsidizing anything.

---

My ideology is what it is due to what is practical. I'm into what works.

I don't believe the government doesn't have the right to tax. I don't even know what a right is. Though I do know how the Constitution defines rights, as things that exist because of prohibition of government intervention.

Quote:

---

Let's shift your logic elsewhere for illustrative purposes. The second amendment is law, but it is very controversial. Therefore the government should not be subsidizing gun purchases. People who purchase guns should be barred from receiving any government assistance.

It's an absurd argument.

---

What makes that absurd? That's what the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment intended in the first place. The concept of government assistance is new and was not something the United States Constitution included. That whole thing was about prohibition of government power. Welfarism came later and its origins are mostly outside of the US.

And yeah, gun owners shouldn't be allowed to receive welfare for the reason you described. And the same logic should be applied to everybody, which illustrates a reason why welfarism is a contradiction to constitutional principles. Though it isn't a contradiction to the socialist idea of rights. Which raises the question, which one of those actually successfully provides rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Not that you were accusing me of being in favor of the current welfare system, but I think intuitively it makes sense and the data is coming in in support of no strings attached welfare.

---

What data are you referring to?

Here's economist Bryan Caplan on universal basic income (UBI):

Quote:

---

Overall, the UBI probably gives even worse incentives than the status quo. Defenders of the UBI correctly point out that it might improve incentives for people who are already on welfare. Under the status quo, earning another $1 of legal income can easily reduce your welfare by a $1, implying a marginal tax rate of 100%. But under the status quo, vast populations are ineligible for most programs. Such as? You guys! If you're an able-bodied adult, aged 18-64, who doesn't have custody of any minor children, the current system doesn't give you much. Switching to a UBI would expand the familiar perverse effects of the welfare state to the entire population - including you. And if taxes rise to pay for the UBI, the population-wide disincentives are even worse.

---

When it comes to explaining how it is possible that UBI could benefit the country, it would need to be explained how UBI could increase incentives to produce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

My ideology is what it is due to what is practical. I'm into what works.

I don't believe the government doesn't have the right to tax. I don't even know what a right is. Though I do know how the Constitution defines rights, as things that exist because of prohibition of government intervention.



What makes that absurd? That's what the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment intended in the first place. The concept of government assistance is new and was not something the United States Constitution included. That whole thing was about prohibition of government power. Welfarism came later and its origins are mostly outside of the US.

And yeah, gun owners shouldn't be allowed to receive welfare for the reason you described. And the same logic should be applied to everybody, which illustrates a reason why welfarism is a contradiction to constitutional principles. Though it isn't a contradiction to the socialist idea of rights. Which raises the question, which one of those actually successfully provides rights?

---

It's absurd because it's not the discussion we're having. We are talking about reality, and then suddenly you start talking about libertopia without informing your fellow participants in the conversation. Making the point about abortion in isolation is misleading and impossible to map onto reality as it stands.

WRT Originalism. It's nonsense. The signer's intended a framework that would be a robust starting place. The fact that they included paths to amendment are testament to the fact that they not only suspected it would be changed but in many cases likely hoped it would be.

Which one provides rights? Individual rights? I don't really care, that's your ideological axiom, not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What data are you referring to?

Here's economist Bryan Caplan on universal basic income (UBI):





When it comes to explaining how it is possible that UBI could benefit the country, it would need to be explained how UBI could increase incentives to produce.

---

The most recent studies are still ongoing, but there's a pretty large one underway in Kenya at the moment. My understanding is that on the whole people have not cut back on work, but instead increased spending on improvements to their standard of living, started businesses, etc.

It's nice that Caplan is offering his view based on theory, but the results, so far, aren't in support of the theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

It's absurd because it's not the discussion we're having. We are talking about reality, and then suddenly you start talking about libertopia without informing your fellow participants in the conversation. Making the point about abortion in isolation is misleading and impossible to map onto reality as it stands.

---

I was discussing a budget constraint model that includes the concept that if somebody is not legally allowed to spend on a part of the budget from a certain revenue source, the person gets past this by reorganizing which revenue sources they spend on which portions of their budget. This makes the type of law that MMM referred to toothless. This applies to both producers and consumers. That was the entirety of my point.

You expanded beyond this with the infinite regression of causality point. It's a good point. I responded to that in kind.

Quote:

---

WRT Originalism. It's nonsense. The signer's intended a framework that would be a robust starting place. The fact that they included paths to amendment are testament to the fact that they not only suspected it would be changed but in many cases likely hoped it would be.

---

I'm not one to say I know what was intended. I know what it says and what they said. It can be the case that the framers intended government to not do welfare and also that that could be changed by others in the future.

Quote:

---

Which one provides rights? Individual rights? I don't really care, that's your ideological axiom, not mine.

---

You said you think I might have a particular belief about rights. I clarified that is not my belief. I went on to describe the concept of rights within the framework of the Constitution, and I added what is as far as I can tell the concept of rights from the majority counter perspective. I finished with a question regarding which concept is more successful at doing what it claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

The most recent studies are still ongoing, but there's a pretty large one underway in Kenya at the moment. My understanding is that on the whole people have not cut back on work, but instead increased spending on improvements to their standard of living, started businesses, etc.

It's nice that Caplan is offering his view based on theory, but the results, so far, aren't in support of the theory.

---

I would like to see the study. In my experience, the popular press tends to interpret these things in ways the studies don't justify. From what I know so far, these studies that I have heard about for quite some time have such different parameters than what would inform us about UBI results. Regardless, I am interested in reading the actual studies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

The most recent studies are still ongoing, but there's a pretty large one underway in Kenya at the moment. My understanding is that on the whole people have not cut back on work, but instead increased spending on improvements to their standard of living, started businesses, etc.

It's nice that Caplan is offering his view based on theory, but the results, so far, aren't in support of the theory.

---

Hate to do this, because you've been my biggest cheerleader as of late, but this post represents some cracked thinking.

I'm really not familiar with the Kenya situation. I have read some about similar programs going on in Europe. One of the major problems I see, is that the program is billed as "experimental". If you're referring to the Kenya program as "a study", then chances are it's been advertised as such. That insulates people against feeling entitled to the benefit. Rather, it is perceived as a "bonus".

So this "study" is rigged. It's artificially inflating income while not dis-incentivizing work. Once this program has been in place for a few decades, it's certainly reasonable to think that might start to fall apart. Once the benefit becomes perceives as a secure, guaranteed, entitlement, that's when the incentive to work starts to degrade.

And you can't put in a program like this for that long, and then take it back later. So the debate must absolutely occur in theory. Any real-life experiment is bull-shit....unless maybe it can show that the incentive to work lasted through say 50+ years. But there is no such data.

think about it like this....did savings fall off of a cliff after social security was enacted? Nope. People still saved. It took four generations for us to reach our current state where 1/3 of American adults can't pull together $1,000 for an emergency expense.

the program was really meant to support non-working women. They overwhelmingly lived longer than their husbands, and usually never worked a day in their life. How the fuck are they supposed to survive once they're widowed? It was enacted to start paying out after age 65, at a time when life expectancy for men was right about 65. So, now that feminism has happened, and two-income households are more common than not, you could argue that Social security is totally obsolete. But how the fuck do you stop the program now?????

How can you not infer the same result from UBI's? Rigged results early, consequences much much later, and the program becomes so entrenched, that even if it is proven to be an abject failure, you can never take it back.

One other thing to note. I mentioned that 1/3 of American adults couldn't pull together $1G on a day's notice. That's not even that bad. I recall some threads recently with some socialist libtards touting the greatness of Denmark, Shitserland and Scandanavian countries that provide citizens with tons of entitlements.

Wanna guess who is the world leader in household debt??

So I'm reading up on this Kenya experiment. It is definitely not an experiment about UBI. It's doing very different things than makes up UBI.

The short of it is that the income in UBI is entirely endogenous to the system. The Kenya thing introduces exogenous income. This experiment will tell us next to nothing about UBI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Hate to do this, because you've been my biggest cheerleader as of late, but this post represents some cracked thinking.

I'm really not familiar with the Kenya situation. I have read some about similar programs going on in Europe. One of the major problems I see, is that the program is billed as "experimental". If you're referring to the Kenya program as "a study", then chances are it's been advertised as such. That insulates people against feeling entitled to the benefit. Rather, it is perceived as a "bonus".

So this "study" is rigged. It's artificially inflating income while not dis-incentivizing work. Once this program has been in place for a few decades, it's certainly reasonable to think that might start to fall apart. Once the benefit becomes perceives as a secure, guaranteed, entitlement, that's when the incentive to work starts to degrade.

And you can't put in a program like this for that long, and then take it back later. So the debate must absolutely occur in theory. Any real-life experiment is bull-shit....unless maybe it can show that the incentive to work lasted through say 50+ years. But there is no such data.

think about it like this....did savings fall off of a cliff after social security was enacted? Nope. People still saved. It took four generations for us to reach our current state where 1/3 of American adults can't pull together $1,000 for an emergency expense.

the program was really meant to support non-working women. They overwhelmingly lived longer than their husbands, and usually never worked a day in their life. How the fuck are they supposed to survive once they're widowed? It was enacted to start paying out after age 65, at a time when life expectancy for men was right about 65. So, now that feminism has happened, and two-income households are more common than not, you could argue that Social security is totally obsolete. But how the fuck do you stop the program now?????

How can you not infer the same result from UBI's? Rigged results early, consequences much much later, and the program becomes so entrenched, that even if it is proven to be an abject failure, you can never take it back.

One other thing to note. I mentioned that 1/3 of American adults couldn't pull together $1G on a day's notice. That's not even that bad. I recall some threads recently with some socialist libtards touting the greatness of Denmark, Shitserland and Scandanavian countries that provide citizens with tons of entitlements.

Wanna guess who is the world leader in household debt??

---

Your point about changes in expectations given time is very good. It's not one I was thinking of, but it is definitely true that UBI could cause an initial positive economic shock which would be followed up by negative economic drip. Though this is probably more useful as a way to illustrate it rather than what would actually happen. In the real world it would unlikely cause that positive shock in the first place since markets would adjust for the negative drip at the same time it would adjust for that which could cause a positive shock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

This is a sad side of you. Attack troll spoon is at least entertaining to watch. Defense troll spoon is just pure cringepity.

---

Could you then explain how abortion is not murder instead of going into ad hominem attacks? Here's a definition:

Quote:

---

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

---

Unlawful? Check. It's unlawful in plenty of places.
Premeditated? Check.
Killing? Check.
Of one human being? Check.
By another? Check.

Edit: Fixed a bracket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Unlawful? Check. It's unlawful in plenty of places.

---

C'mon man....you know better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

C'mon man....you know better

---

I'm illustrating the absurdity of endless semantics-based arguments that only have the purpose of derailing the actual conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I'm illustrating the absurdity of endless semantics-based arguments that only have the purpose of derailing the actual conversation.

---

The purpose from my pov is to amuse myself while you lot waffle on about abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Hate to do this, because you've been my biggest cheerleader as of late, but this post represents some cracked thinking.

I'm really not familiar with the Kenya situation. I have read some about similar programs going on in Europe. One of the major problems I see, is that the program is billed as "experimental". If you're referring to the Kenya program as "a study", then chances are it's been advertised as such. That insulates people against feeling entitled to the benefit. Rather, it is perceived as a "bonus".

So this "study" is rigged. It's artificially inflating income while not dis-incentivizing work. Once this program has been in place for a few decades, it's certainly reasonable to think that might start to fall apart. Once the benefit becomes perceives as a secure, guaranteed, entitlement, that's when the incentive to work starts to degrade.

And you can't put in a program like this for that long, and then take it back later. So the debate must absolutely occur in theory. Any real-life experiment is bull-shit....unless maybe it can show that the incentive to work lasted through say 50+ years. But there is no such data.

think about it like this....did savings fall off of a cliff after social security was enacted? Nope. People still saved. It took four generations for us to reach our current state where 1/3 of American adults can't pull together $1,000 for an emergency expense.

the program was really meant to support non-working women. They overwhelmingly lived longer than their husbands, and usually never worked a day in their life. How the fuck are they supposed to survive once they're widowed? It was enacted to start paying out after age 65, at a time when life expectancy for men was right about 65. So, now that feminism has happened, and two-income households are more common than not, you could argue that Social security is totally obsolete. But how the fuck do you stop the program now?????

How can you not infer the same result from UBI's? Rigged results early, consequences much much later, and the program becomes so entrenched, that even if it is proven to be an abject failure, you can never take it back.

One other thing to note. I mentioned that 1/3 of American adults couldn't pull together $1G on a day's notice. That's not even that bad. I recall some threads recently with some socialist libtards touting the greatness of Denmark, Shitserland and Scandanavian countries that provide citizens with tons of entitlements.

Wanna guess who is the world leader in household debt??

---

Hate to do it? Why? I don't compliment or negatively critique you or anyone to gain favor-- at least not in the context of a discussion. I think you're making mostly good points and arguments and keeping it civil. That's what's needed for a good discussion that helps get at the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Could you then explain how abortion is not murder instead of going into ad hominem attacks? Here's a definition:



Unlawful? Check. It's unlawful in plenty of places.
Premeditated? Check.
Killing? Check.
Of one human being? Check.
By another? Check.

Edit: Fixed a bracket.

---

It's lawful in the context of the discussion. If you want to discussion abortion rights as they apply to a jurisdiction in which abortions are illegal, then you will get no push back from me for calling it murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I'm illustrating the absurdity of endless semantics-based arguments that only have the purpose of derailing the actual conversation.

---

You're doing a poor job of it. In the context of the discussion your semantic nit pick does not hold up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Could you then explain how abortion is not murder instead of going into ad hominem attacks? Here's a definition:

---

I have. As for the bold, well, sorry, but you don't get to play this card when you have gone to such great lengths (or was it you being careless?) to obfuscate the difference between serious spoon and troll spoon and the insult is "you're being a troll and a shitty one at that."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

It's lawful in the context of the discussion. If you want to discussion abortion rights as they apply to a jurisdiction in which abortions are illegal, then you will get no push back from me for calling it murder.

---

Thank you for proving my point.

So getting back to what we were all talking about before you guys decided to take a big circlejerk semantics shit on the discussion:

I'm of the opinion that abortion is murder, and I am pro-choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I'm of the opinion that abortion is murder, and I am pro-choice.

---

Do go on, we all are dying to hear how this makes any sense outside of being a cute trick for a contrarian to pull out when abortion comes up. Oh wait, we've already covered this ground, you did not produce, and yet you claim victory.

zzZzzZzz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Do go on, we all are dying to hear how this makes any sense outside of being a cute trick for a contrarian to pull out when abortion comes up. Oh wait, we've already covered this ground, you did not produce, and yet you claim victory.

zzZzzZzz

---

Riveting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I'm of the opinion that abortion is murder, and I am pro-choice.

---

Within the realm of Christianity and the oral traditions and other stories that were pieced together to help create its foundations, there's not really any concept of intentional contraception, at the very least of any reliable consistency. Figuring out where that would have fit if they were to have it back then is pretty interesting to think about.

One avenue is to go the Catholicism route that dictates that contraception usage is wrong because sex should only be for procreation. Lust itself is a deadly sin, but the word "lust" in that context only means an uncontrolled desire that leads to bad judgment and doing other seemingly bad things like fucking sheep or raping people, not a regular level of desire (particularly within the context of a monogamous relationship). Then you get into how much desire is "too much" desire, which would then qualify as lust as a deadly sin, and it all gets pretty hairy and arbitrary.

I propose a different route:

A central tenet of most of the themes you see from Christian mythology is the idea of taking responsibility for yourself, even if the outcomes you encounter are affected by things outside of your control. You see this in all of the themes of sacrifice and how to sacrifice correctly. One of the greatest sacrifices you can make is of your child, and we see that in a variety of different stories.

One of the key stories of sacrifice of your child is the crucifixion, which in one way can be seen as God sacrificing his child (or Jesus sacrificing himself) for the betterment of human beings (ie: society).

I think this provides one possible archetype for abortion: You're sacrificing your child for the betterment of society as a form of taking responsibility for yourself and what you put into the world.