World Politics - Page 1272 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12711  
Old 11-14-12, 00:22
fatandfast fatandfast is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auscyclefan94 View Post
Yes it is wrong. The 'nanny state' idiom is perfectly appropriate for this debate. People know what food is bad and what food is good for them. I someone who believes in minimal control in people's lives and I do think that a fat tax is inefficient. Research has stated that the maximum a fat tax will reduce weight off people is 500 grams. Not a lot at all. Let people put food that they want to in their mouth. I am against 'sin taxes' in principle because often they do not address the exact problem and it is the person's responsibility for the consequences of that so called 'sin' that is the punishment.
This is wrong, people don't know what food is good for them. In American culture the things that were done only a couple of decades ago, playing outside extensively, eating food prepared at home for a majority of meals, and health care cost that was not out of control.

One dozen fat sick people can cost more to treat medically than all ten can earn in a lifetime just from heart disease and diabetes. If these conditions occur during childhood,the sick person lets say has only sinned for 12 or 13 years. The rest of us pick up the sin tax until death often 10 of thousands of dollars for medical expense for a start. The special school and transportation a very sick young sinner student may require is an additional chunk of change. Nanny or no nanny the hands off approach to free will at the snack booth is a huge loser for everybody.

If we reeducate the parents of current and would-be at risk kids so that high sugar and fat foods would be considered bad the learning curve will cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars if we could do it in 10 or 15 years. 20 is a generation and this one is lost due to freedom of choice. We shouldn't allow people to kill themselves just because they can.
Reply With Quote
  #12712  
Old 11-14-12, 00:33
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auscyclefan94 View Post
The main Fairfax papers such as The Age and Sunday Morning Herald have always been very left leaning. Open your eyes Ferminal. Do you ever watch QandA or Insiders? Very obvious left wing bias on those shows. Whether it be the panels or the audience, it is very left wing. I am all for privatising the SBS. ABC is more difficult for me to say 'privatise that'. I can see the use of a state broadcast but I don't enjoy the clear left wing bias. State broadcasters around the wold such as the BBC and the ABC (US) have always been left leaning. No doubt some of their investigative journalism is very good but to say that the ABC is objective and not bias displays that either you are in denial or your head has been stuck in the sand.



Yeah I saw that. Very amusing.
Why would I watch Q&A? It's a horrible program. You watch political programs and expect them to be completely transparent. Some bias is inherent in almost all political commentary.

The ABC is more objective and provides for the clearest transmission of news than any other media outlet in this country, I stand by this statement. Maybe you could provide an alternative?

Last edited by Ferminal; 11-14-12 at 00:36.
Reply With Quote
  #12713  
Old 11-14-12, 01:03
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
Why would I watch Q&A? It's a horrible program. You watch political programs and expect them to be completely transparent. Some bias is inherent in almost all political commentary.

The ABC is more objective and provides for the clearest transmission of news than any other media outlet in this country, I stand by this statement. Maybe you could provide an alternative?
I don't think there is one single objective media outlet. That is why I watch and read many different sources to get a better grasp of an issue. I don't believe the concept of Q&A is horrible program although the bias is very strong. Horrible is probably a bit strong of a word.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12714  
Old 11-14-12, 01:06
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,436
Default

Well it's worthless to me. What's worse than an interview with one politician? An interview with three or five of them (not to mention Jones who loves the sound of his own voice)! Combine that with the completely naive audience who think they are there making a difference. They should have stuck with 'Question Time'.
Reply With Quote
  #12715  
Old 11-14-12, 02:01
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,867
Default

Gillard continuing to lie about AWU scandal. Let's have a look at what she and others have said.

Julia Gillard:
Quote:
I was not an official of the AWU. I was not in charge of the conveyancing file.
Slater and Gordon Director, Andrew Grech
Quote:
‘’The only documentary evidence Slater & Gordon was in possession of was that Ms Gillard acted directly for Mr Blewitt in relation to a conveyancing matter, a union dispute and a defamation matter,’’
Plenty more examples of this.



Gillard's time will come.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.

Last edited by auscyclefan94; 11-14-12 at 02:12.
Reply With Quote
  #12716  
Old 11-14-12, 02:12
trompe le monde trompe le monde is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatandfast View Post
This is wrong, people don't know what food is good for them. In American culture the things that were done only a couple of decades ago, playing outside extensively, eating food prepared at home for a majority of meals, and health care cost that was not out of control.

One dozen fat sick people can cost more to treat medically than all ten can earn in a lifetime just from heart disease and diabetes. If these conditions occur during childhood,the sick person lets say has only sinned for 12 or 13 years. The rest of us pick up the sin tax until death often 10 of thousands of dollars for medical expense for a start. The special school and transportation a very sick young sinner student may require is an additional chunk of change. Nanny or no nanny the hands off approach to free will at the snack booth is a huge loser for everybody.

If we reeducate the parents of current and would-be at risk kids so that high sugar and fat foods would be considered bad the learning curve will cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars if we could do it in 10 or 15 years. 20 is a generation and this one is lost due to freedom of choice. We shouldn't allow people to kill themselves just because they can.
Agree entirely.

David Brooks of the New York Times assessed or characterized the political left by saying they lacked epistemological modesty. The funny side of that phrase is that you can accuse the right of doing the same thing, but in different terms. The left may claim that they try and do what's best for a certain idealized model of what a human life should be, which is up for debate and may seem slightly immodest to make such a claim.

The right, however, lacks a different kind of modesty, in that they assume that an individual has some omniscient sense of knowledge in which they both know and understand what is best for them at all times. I think the Darwin Awards would suggest that this really isn't the case.

Again, I agree with you. To argue against a fat tax loosely on the bounds that it encroaches on a person's freedom seems slightly absurd. The point of such a tax is that by making healthier choices, you will be able to better maximize your freedom by having a better chance of being healthy. Sure sin taxes provide disincentive, which constrains choice, but the flip side is that they are there to provide the incentive that you should perhaps,maybe, possibly make better choices and healthier choices.

It's weird. ACF's position is the following: I value my freedom by being able to make choices that may ultimately degrade my ability to exercise it. What a wonderful way to value freedom!
__________________
No longer Polysorbate 80 Free.
Reply With Quote
  #12717  
Old 11-14-12, 02:21
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trompe le monde View Post
Agree entirely.
[snip]
Again, I agree with you. To argue against a fat tax loosely on the bounds that it encroaches on a person's freedom seems slightly absurd. The point of such a tax is that by making healthier choices, you will be able to better maximize your freedom by having a better chance of being healthy. Sure sin taxes provide disincentive, which constrains choice, but the flip side is that they are there to provide the incentive that you should perhaps,maybe, possibly make better choices and healthier choices.

It's weird. ACF's position is the following: I value my freedom by being able to make choices that may ultimately degrade my ability to exercise it. What a wonderful way to value freedom!
You have stated that the "point of such a tax is that by making healthier choices". To have freedom is to have the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Creating a tax of that sort encroaches on one's freedom and liberty. You are supporting my argument. The tax is in place to deter people from eating things. It is paternalism and the Government seems to think that it knows better. If the Government wants to help people make what you think is a better choice, then encroaching on someone's freedom is not the answer. Education is the way and other subsidising programs, (i.e. making exercise more cheaper for people). Forcing a change of behaviour simply is out of line and will not work.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12718  
Old 11-14-12, 09:44
movingtarget movingtarget is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
Why would I watch Q&A? It's a horrible program. You watch political programs and expect them to be completely transparent. Some bias is inherent in almost all political commentary.

The ABC is more objective and provides for the clearest transmission of news than any other media outlet in this country, I stand by this statement. Maybe you could provide an alternative?
I agree. Q & A is like a shorter version of Insight with people constantly talking over the top of each other. 7.30 is ok but was better with Kerry O'Brien of course, a much better interviewer than the current host. Four Corners is still a quality program as is Dateline on SBS. I can't believe how bad, 60 Minutes is now. It's unwatchable, one step above Current Affair, real tabloid waste.
Reply With Quote
  #12719  
Old 11-14-12, 16:03
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,436
Default

Yep, 60 minutes has become ACA on steroids. It's been "just ok" for a while but the last few years have gone downhill drastically. Last time I watched (months ago) there was a "hard hitting" piece where the lack of journalistic integrity was astonishing, the whole thing was just an exercise in manipulating the viewer POV.
Reply With Quote
  #12720  
Old 11-14-12, 17:51
trompe le monde trompe le monde is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auscyclefan94 View Post
You have stated that the "point of such a tax is that by making healthier choices". To have freedom is to have the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Creating a tax of that sort encroaches on one's freedom and liberty. You are supporting my argument. The tax is in place to deter people from eating things. It is paternalism and the Government seems to think that it knows better. If the Government wants to help people make what you think is a better choice, then encroaching on someone's freedom is not the answer. Education is the way and other subsidising programs, (i.e. making exercise more cheaper for people). Forcing a change of behaviour simply is out of line and will not work.
Er, I am not supporting your argument. Learn to read carefully acf.

Freedom, as a concept, is not a blanket statement that automatically means that you have the liberty to act, speak and think as you like. What you are arguing for is the notion of freedom as an opportunity concept.

What I am arguing for is the idea of freedom as an exercise concept. What does this mean? Well, it means that freedom, in order to value it properly, has to be cultivated to some degree.

Freedom as mere opportunity is too thin a notion. Besides, if you believe Hobbes, which you won't, one of the founding notions of entering into a social contract is to get away from a state of nature in which there is war of all against all. To do so, your freedom, ultimately has to be curtailed somewhat in order to try and secure a life that may be more safe, and perhaps more meaningful. There is, and always will be, a sense of paternalism in any society. To argue against it is to eloquently argue for your own idiocy.

But go on, acf, continue to argue that a fat tax encroaches on personal freedom because you value freedom as opportunity so much. It makes so little sense to argue against that which tries to help you.
__________________
No longer Polysorbate 80 Free.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.