3 ms·

>It appalls me that HN is so adamantly desirous of the freedom of the press, the freedom of anonymity, the freedom of assembly, etc., but sees no problem with c

by indlebe 13y ago

>It appalls me that HN is so adamantly desirous of the freedom of the press, the freedom of anonymity, the freedom of assembly, etc., but sees no problem with calling for the mass restrictions of freedoms in work, housing, healthcare, and the like. Even, apparently, the freedom to choose what you eat. I upvoted this article, but not because I see no problem with calling for mass restrictions. It's causing good debate and perhaps provoking thought. I do see your point, that we're not upvoting fox-news-worthy neocon propaganda for the sake of discussion. But perhaps there is a difference in the outcome of following the respective propagandas. Which one would be more "forward-thinking"? Stopping all immigration or banning pepsi from schools? EDIT: >Stopping all immigration or banning pepsi from schools. I look back on this statement as a false dichotomy, as a result of the replies. My perception was challenged as a result of this article being posted in the first place and the banter that followed. I still stand by my original upvote of this article, as it lead to my own personal growth, selfish or no.

ericdykstra 13y ago
Which one would be more "forward-thinking"? Stopping all immigration or banning pepsi from schools? False Dichotomy. Which one would be more forward-thinking: destroying the farm subsidies that let unhealthy foods become cheaper than healthy foods and skew the market, or having governments, like the one that brought you the 'food pyramid' and pushed it on schools, decide what you can and cannot consume?
- indlebe 13y ago
  understood, thank you and touche.
benaiah 13y ago
Well, ignoring the meaningless guilt by association tactics ("fox-news-worthy neocon propaganda"), it's quite simple. I don't care about being "forward-thinking". I care deeply about freedom. I have relatively idiosyncratic views, but I align myself largely with the libertarians except on a few social issues. I just don't think people should be forced to do things except in very specific and limited circumstances. I find the examples you bring up rather interesting. First, I think the right/left political system in America implied by your choice of topics is a false dichotomy. I don't think the two sides are really all that different at the core. Pepsi in schools is a non-issue to me. My problem there is the schools themselves - this is a different argument, and I'll have it in a different comment if you want to have it. So no, I don't think it should be banned. The immigration question is very difficult, and brings up many issues such as the real role of nations and the importance of citizenship. I haven't completely made up my mind on the issue, but I think both the major positions are wrong. Really, I think immigration wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the cancerous explosion of government in the first place. One of the biggest problems the Right has with immigrants (other than racism, which exists and which I eschew), is that they gain access to socialized benefits they didn't have to support. I don't think the government should be forcing people to pay for these social benefits in the first place, with a few very limited exceptions. That said, there are many other facets to the issue, so I'm not going to take any definite stand on the issue as a whole at this point.
- indlebe 13y ago
  >Well, ignoring the meaningless guilt by association tactics ("fox-news-worthy neocon propaganda") this tactic was unintended. can you please elaborate more on how this is that? >Pepsi in schools is a non-issue to me. My problem there is the schools themselves - this is a different argument, and I'll have it in a different comment if you want to have it. So no, I don't think it should be banned. i agree that the problem is the schools themselves (however I am interested in your thoughts/opinions there) but i do think extremely unhealthy drinks that impede normal child growth should be banned from publicly funded institutions. >First, I think the right/left political system in America implied by your choice of topics is a false dichotomy agreed. i recognize this now. please see the edit to my post. thank you.
  - benaiah 13y ago
    First, thanks for being a quite reasonable commenter. The guilt by association essentially means it seemed were implying that because I espoused certain views also espoused by a certain political party (i.e., my comment about disliking government interference in healthcare), I was thus espousing "fox-news-worthy neocon propaganda". I don't side with the GOP or Fox News on any sort of comprehensive basis, and I think there's plenty of reasonable discussion to be had on these issues, and there are reasonable thinkers on the other side of some of these issues, if you're willing to look past the unreasonable ones. There's crazy people on your side of the aisle, too. Back to Pepsi/schools: When I said the problem was with the schools themselves, I meant the idea of public education in the first place. I don't think I should be forced to send my child to a government institution to learn (this battle's been mostly won). I don't think I should have to pay for education for the rest (not even close). I think the idea of government having even the tiniest bit of control over education is abhorrent. Education needs to be independent of government the same way journalism needs to be independent of government - because it shapes the thoughts of the nation, and it is astoundingly foolish to give any control of thought to the organization whose only limit is the reasoned thoughts of its populace. It was seen vividly recently, as the hyper-liberal NEA began to bring political pressure on the children of the nation to support a specific political party, all while in a near-mandatory system that is paid for by our tax dollars. The alternative I would pose is literally any form of private education - both homeschooling and church schools have far longer and better track records than public education, which only stems back, in its modern, Prussian form, to the early 19th century. So in other words, the Pepsi isn't really the issue there.

by indlebe 13y ago

ericdykstra 13y ago

Which one would be more "forward-thinking"? Stopping all immigration or banning pepsi from schools? False Dichotomy. Which one would be more forward-thinking: destroying the farm subsidies that let unhealthy foods become cheaper than healthy foods and skew the market, or having governments, like the one that brought you the 'food pyramid' and pushed it on schools, decide what you can and cannot consume?

indlebe 13y ago
understood, thank you and touche.

benaiah 13y ago

Well, ignoring the meaningless guilt by association tactics ("fox-news-worthy neocon propaganda"), it's quite simple. I don't care about being "forward-thinking". I care deeply about freedom. I have relatively idiosyncratic views, but I align myself largely with the libertarians except on a few social issues. I just don't think people should be forced to do things except in very specific and limited circumstances. I find the examples you bring up rather interesting. First, I think the right/left political system in America implied by your choice of topics is a false dichotomy. I don't think the two sides are really all that different at the core. Pepsi in schools is a non-issue to me. My problem there is the schools themselves - this is a different argument, and I'll have it in a different comment if you want to have it. So no, I don't think it should be banned. The immigration question is very difficult, and brings up many issues such as the real role of nations and the importance of citizenship. I haven't completely made up my mind on the issue, but I think both the major positions are wrong. Really, I think immigration wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the cancerous explosion of government in the first place. One of the biggest problems the Right has with immigrants (other than racism, which exists and which I eschew), is that they gain access to socialized benefits they didn't have to support. I don't think the government should be forcing people to pay for these social benefits in the first place, with a few very limited exceptions. That said, there are many other facets to the issue, so I'm not going to take any definite stand on the issue as a whole at this point.

indlebe 13y ago
>Well, ignoring the meaningless guilt by association tactics ("fox-news-worthy neocon propaganda") this tactic was unintended. can you please elaborate more on how this is that? >Pepsi in schools is a non-issue to me. My problem there is the schools themselves - this is a different argument, and I'll have it in a different comment if you want to have it. So no, I don't think it should be banned. i agree that the problem is the schools themselves (however I am interested in your thoughts/opinions there) but i do think extremely unhealthy drinks that impede normal child growth should be banned from publicly funded institutions. >First, I think the right/left political system in America implied by your choice of topics is a false dichotomy agreed. i recognize this now. please see the edit to my post. thank you.
- benaiah 13y ago
  First, thanks for being a quite reasonable commenter. The guilt by association essentially means it seemed were implying that because I espoused certain views also espoused by a certain political party (i.e., my comment about disliking government interference in healthcare), I was thus espousing "fox-news-worthy neocon propaganda". I don't side with the GOP or Fox News on any sort of comprehensive basis, and I think there's plenty of reasonable discussion to be had on these issues, and there are reasonable thinkers on the other side of some of these issues, if you're willing to look past the unreasonable ones. There's crazy people on your side of the aisle, too. Back to Pepsi/schools: When I said the problem was with the schools themselves, I meant the idea of public education in the first place. I don't think I should be forced to send my child to a government institution to learn (this battle's been mostly won). I don't think I should have to pay for education for the rest (not even close). I think the idea of government having even the tiniest bit of control over education is abhorrent. Education needs to be independent of government the same way journalism needs to be independent of government - because it shapes the thoughts of the nation, and it is astoundingly foolish to give any control of thought to the organization whose only limit is the reasoned thoughts of its populace. It was seen vividly recently, as the hyper-liberal NEA began to bring political pressure on the children of the nation to support a specific political party, all while in a near-mandatory system that is paid for by our tax dollars. The alternative I would pose is literally any form of private education - both homeschooling and church schools have far longer and better track records than public education, which only stems back, in its modern, Prussian form, to the early 19th century. So in other words, the Pepsi isn't really the issue there.