World Politics

[auscyclefan94]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with a fat tax. Ingesting inordinant amounts of fat only helps to line the body with unhealthy amounts of adipose tissue, which in turn becomes a strain on the health care system due to the associated problems of being overweight (I'm a Canadian, so there is an impact upon my fellow taxpayers if my weight starts to approach that of fully gassed up Yugo).

The strange thing, and I say this with a degree of perplexity, is that those who chime in critiquing the great freedom rapist that is 'The Nanny State' is that they choose not to argue for a minimum baseline of what a meaningful life can or should be. Actually they do, but it is based upon an ego-centric, self-centered perspective that is fueled by harkening back to some Ayn Rand written drivel. To be solely in control of one's ability to choose does not mean that you will choose wisely. So, in a way, sin taxes are a loose of means of trying to cultivate what a person should or should not choose. So, yes, I agree with you Netserk.

Isaiah Berlin perhaps said it best that political theories really boil down to two simple questions: 'Who governs me?' and 'What is my area of non-interference?'

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.

 

[fatandfast]

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.

 

[Ferminal]

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?

 

[blutto]

....major breaking story...

Nation Horrified To Learn About War In Afghanistan While Reading Up On Petraeus Sex Scandal
NOVEMBER 13, 2012 | ISSUE 48•46

Sources: Petraeus Knew About Affair For More Than A Year
WASHINGTON—As they scoured the Internet for more juicy details about former CIA director David Petraeus’ affair with biographer Paula Broadwell, Americans were reportedly horrified today upon learning that a protracted, bloody war involving U.S. forces is currently raging in the nation of Afghanistan. “Oh my God, this is terrible,” Allie Lipscomb, 29, said after accidentally stumbling on an article about the war while she tried to ascertain details about what specific sexual acts Petraeus and Broadwell might have engaged in. “According to this, 2,000 American troops have died, 18,000 have been wounded, and more than 20,000 civilians have been killed. Jesus Christ. And it’s been happening for, like, 11 years.” Sources confirmed that after reading a few paragraphs about the brutal war, the nation quickly became distracted by a headline about Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash’s alleged sexual abuse of a 16-year-old boy.

Cheers

blutto

 

[auscyclefan94]

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.

 

[Ferminal]

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'.

 

[auscyclefan94]

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

Julia Gillard:

I was not an official of the AWU. I was not in charge of the conveyancing file.

Slater and Gordon Director, Andrew Grech

‘’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.

 

[trompe le monde]

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!

 

[auscyclefan94]

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.

 

[movingtarget]

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.

 

[Ferminal]

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.

 

[trompe le monde]

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.

 

[auscyclefan94]

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.

You don't think you are, but you have. I understand limits to freedom but I don't agree with it on this point. I think there is a difference or line between what is over-the-top in restricting freedom and what is reasonable. I do not see the fat tax reasonable for the aforementioned reasons.

 

[trompe le monde]

You don't think you are, but you have. I understand limits to freedom but I don't agree with it on this point. I think there is a difference or line between what is over-the-top in restricting freedom and what is reasonable. I do not see the fat tax reasonable for the aforementioned reasons.

Oh wise one, lead me to the light! I appreciate that you have not responded to anything I have said, but merely said a blanket statement that is, well, meaningless, in absence of context that you failed to address. You have learned well and are well on your way to a meaningless career in futile debating.

If you think you can escape some semblance of paternalism in society, you are deeply misguided. Speed limits on roads? That's an expression of paternalism, as it places the safety of the greater good above any individual's desire to drive 160 kph in a designated 60 kph zone. Stop signs on intersections cramping your style? Oh god, paternalism.

I will give you an example since you can't seem to grasp what I am trying to say. Say you have in your hand the following coins: a 1 cent coin, a 5 cent coin, a 10 cent coin and a 25 cent coin. Now, you can say two things about this. One, is that you have four coins. The other is that you have four coins of differing value. This is a token-type distinction. To say you have four coins is to say that you have four tokens whereas to say you have four coins of differing value is to say that you have four types of coins. Understand? Good.

Now, let's apply this to a sin a tax such as a fat tax. One of the assumptions a fat tax assumes is that not all free choices have the same value. That is, free choices fall within a range of values, some trivial, some important, with the caviat that people are willing to sacrifice trivial choices in order to make more important ones. Ergo, I would be willing to sacrifice fatty foods through a fat tax if that will help me achieve my goal of being able to travel in the future once I retire. Because let's be honest, it is easier to travel if I have some degree of moderate health rather than having the weight and appearance of a bloated walrus. In this case, I would put the value of being able to choose fatty foods at 1 cent and my being able to travel once I retire at 25 cents because I identify more with the travel goal because it is much more meaningful to me. Still get it? Good.


If you identify freedom of choice as strictly a token that cannot be curtailed in any shape or form, you are demeaning it by saying the value of the ability to make a free choice is equal across all situations. I would not say that the freedom to choose a package of chips over a bunch of broccoli has the same value or is equally as important as that of being able to choose where you would like to work, where you live, etc. To think that a restriction of choice that a fat tax would implement as unreasonable is unreasonable because it is premissed on the idea that all choices have equal value, which is quite frankly, moronic.

 

[python]

anyone following the rape of gaza ?

the rape by the ethnic and cultural group of people who had experience the same at the hands of the historically condemned Nazi ideology some decades back?

...i decided to ask b/c there was no relevant posting and after just reading the guardian's piece, 'gaza: 4 children killed in single israeli air strike'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/18/gaza-israel-children-killed-air-strike

 

[Murray]

anyone following the rape of gaza ?

anyone following the hundreds of rockets Hamas is firing on a daily basis into Israel?

 

[BroDeal]

anyone following the rape of gaza ?

the rape by the ethnic and cultural group of people who had experience the same at the hands of the historically condemned Nazi ideology some decades back?

...i decided to ask b/c there was no relevant posting and after just reading the guardian's piece, 'gaza: 4 children killed in single israeli air strike'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/18/gaza-israel-children-killed-air-strike

Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp. It is sort of funny how sanctimoniously outraged the jailers get when the prisoners get out of hand.

 

[Murray]

It is sort of funny how sanctimoniously outraged the jailers get when the prisoners get out of hand.

You know what else is "sort of funny"; how the "prisoners" got their hands on hundreds of rockets that they're firing at civilians.

 

[Amsterhammer]

I've been staying away from this because of embarrassment and shame. I am a non-practicing Jew. I was born not long after the Holocaust. Various members of my mother's extended family were gassed and strung up on lamp posts.

I think that Israel should have the right to exist, but I have never been any kind of Zionist. Israeli governments have made me feel ashamed for as long as I can remember. I cannot ****ing believe that Jews could oppress and suppress another people as brutally as they have been doing. Every time it kicks off the kill ratio is 10:1 or worse. I believe three Israelis have been killed so far (certainly, three too many,) while we're sadly into the dozens of dead Palestinians, including those four children.

Usually, after the feelings of shock, horror and shame, I start to get really ****ing angry. Which is why I try and avoid talking/thinking/writing about these actions by 'my' people, actions that in many instances should be prosecuted as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

(an exact progression of my feelings)

 

[Murray]

Amsterhammer.... I agree with everything you said. The problem is that both sides have to stop the shooting and actually want to have peace.

 

[blutto]

I've been staying away from this because of embarrassment and shame. I am a non-practicing Jew. I was born not long after the Holocaust. Various members of my mother's extended family were gassed and strung up on lamp posts.

I think that Israel should have the right to exist, but I have never been any kind of Zionist. Israeli governments have made me feel ashamed for as long as I can remember. I cannot ****ing believe that Jews could oppress and suppress another people as brutally as they have been doing. Every time it kicks off the kill ratio is 10:1 or worse. I believe three Israelis have been killed so far (certainly, three too many,) while we're sadly into the dozens of dead Palestinians, including those four children.

Usually, after the feelings of shock, horror and shame, I start to get really ****ing angry. Which is why I try and avoid talking/thinking/writing about these actions by 'my' people, actions that in many instances should be prosecuted as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

(an exact progression of my feelings)

...agreed...

Cheers

blutto

 

[movingtarget]

There just seems to be no solutions to the middle east problems. It's one disaster after another.

 

[BroDeal]

You know what else is "sort of funny"; how the "prisoners" got their hands on hundreds of rockets that they're firing at civilians.

Yeah, outrageous, How dare those people fight against their oppressors, those people who have lived their entire lives under occupation with children who have lived their entire lives under occupation and grandchildren who have lived their entire lives under occupation. Why don't they just lay down so they can be treated like vermin for another three generations.

Never again, I say. Never again (unless they are Palestinians)!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yeah, outrageous, How dare those people fight against their oppressors, those people who have lived their entire lives under occupation with children who have lived their entire lives under occupation and grandchildren who have lived their entire lives under occupation. Why don't they just lay down so they can be treated like vermin for another three generations.

Never again, I say. Never again (unless they are Palestinians)!

There has to be a solution to allow Palestine to have their own country. That decision should be agreed upon without the influence or agreement of Israel in my opinion.

I certainly do not agree with the route that Hamas takes to try and gain their rights to independence. It is nothing more than terrorism.

If Palestine was allowed to form and hold a government would that be enough? Will that end it?

As for the comparison of isolation "occupation" to the Holocaust that is just foolish talk in my opinion.

 

[auscyclefan94]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/asylum-seekers-to-be-released/story-fncynkc6-1226521220706 - Australian Government continues to fail on Immigration therefore backflips on policies that they criticised in the past. The sooner we get rid of this Government, the better!!!!!