Abortions vs. Guns

[PLAYER57832]

That one will probably be taken serious too.

What about the trout? Though you're probably right if you're thinking we won't come by that soon.

We take our trout VERY seriously here .... (even if its mostly brookies)

[Symmetry]

There's plenty of research, just very little action.

[2dimes]

That one will probably be taken serious too.

What about the trout? Though you're probably right if you're thinking we won't come by that soon.

We take our trout VERY seriously here .... (even if its mostly brookies)

Pennsylvania is even farther than or ee gone. Unlikely I am coming after them Brook Troiut.


I have only caught browns and rainbows so far. There are also Brook, Bull, Cut Throat and Lake here. I am working on getting a few of each of them.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

No, not at all the same, except that in both cases, you assume the population is heavily urban and of a similar mindset.

Although the US could do a lot better on mass transport, it will never be like much of Europe because we are far, far more spread out and rural than in Europe. This is not fictional imagination, it is reality.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

USA = 81% urban
UK = 82%

No I'd say pretty conclusively that it is fictional imagination.

Similarly, while hunting is a rich man's sport.. and just that, in Europe. Here in the US, it is very much what puts meat on some people's tables. Understand, I don't even completely mean those who hunt, though many really do depend it for food( we certainly do depend on that meat for our winter meals). I include the many people who sell sporting equipment, from the local gunsmith and gun stores to stores offering hunting apparel. Even if many who buy the "stuff" don't go hunting, or maybe hunt once or twice (and, yes perhaps on a game farm as opposed to a family farm or federal/state lands), without the "idea" of the "sportsman", the allure of those purchases would be heavily diminished. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with violence, it is pure sport.

How is this any different than all the other industries that have been altered by the introduction of mechanisation? Times change, career change. Get over yourself. Move on. Evolve.

But, the real point here is that you have to look at the specifics, not rely upon analogies, particularly when you don't really seem to even "get" the basic problems from the beginning.

No. YOU dont get it. You have admitted that hunting is a luxury. Time to change habits marginally and live differently. Guess what, you'll still enjoy life.

I also like that both Players and Rish have admitted that abolishing cars is quite feasible, it just requires a little bit of thought and some alterations to infrastructure.

[rishaed]

I also like that both Players and Rish have admitted that abolishing cars is quite feasible, it just requires a little bit of thought and some alterations to infrastructure.

Many things are feasible. Not all things are wise. Apart from more government spending, which IMO is never a good thing, you completely ignored half of what i said. Also abolishing cars also means no public transportation other than trains and or planes. Because to abolish cars you have to abolish all cars. And from an economic standpoint for many countries it is NOT Feasible. Not only does removing Cars from the economy remove one of the economic foundations for an industriallized country, it also hurts industries such as plastic, manufacturing, glass, and quite a long list down the road. To make your suggestion even slightly feasible would require an industry as large as the car industry to replace it while maintaining ties to each of the other industries, or creating similar growth/ economy.
Also it would hurt infrastructure because many of the ways you get your products (which you so haply ignored in my last long post) is by Semi-truck. Sure you can receive many things by train plane and boat, but when there are no rail, air, or waterways accessible and only roads, then its truckers who move the products.
And this is just the intial problems i see with this. Its not just a little bit of thought and some alterations to infrastructure. ITS a major reworking of Infrastructure and massive amount of thought along with a self destruction of economy that does not ultimately solve the root of the problem. You are trying to take out the means of death not the cause.

[rishaed]

To further illustrate my point:


Thats just 2008. When the massive recession hit globally. What you are calling for is the removal of between 10-35% of many of the worlds major economies. Can you name an industry not currently existing that could replace this industry portion?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

I personally believe we should start manufacturing on a local scale rather than a global scale, so there is minimal point discussing it.

[rishaed]

I personally believe we should start manufacturing on a local scale rather than a global scale, so there is minimal point discussing it.

But the point is relevant to your argument. What i'm arguing is that this is impractical economically and socially. My other point is that it does not remove the root of the problem. You have made several statements now, and I am willing to debate with you. My argument does not base off of global/local but rather on the scale of the countries. What is practical and feasible for each of the countries here is what i'm going for. Even Germany with a highly sophisticated infrastructure of rail and bus for public transportation has many personal cars owned by the public. There is a balance for each country.
While this idea is feasible, (theoretically) it is not practical in any sense of the word.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

I personally believe we should start manufacturing on a local scale rather than a global scale, so there is minimal point discussing it.

But the point is relevant to your argument. What i'm arguing is that this is impractical economically and socially. My other point is that it does not remove the root of the problem. You have made several statements now, and I am willing to debate with you. My argument does not base off of global/local but rather on the scale of the countries. What is practical and feasible for each of the countries here is what i'm going for. Even Germany with a highly sophisticated infrastructure of rail and bus for public transportation has many personal cars owned by the public. There is a balance for each country.
While this idea is feasible, (theoretically) it is not practical in any sense of the word.

Ok. First off, removing 10% of the world economy is a minor point. Economies are comparable not absolute. So the only real objection should be China who are improportionally affected.

Secondly, scale of countries is some what irrelevant too. I'd go far out to say that inter city links are very good with public transport and with investment from users would become fantastic.

The issue lies in local transport, remapping cities into user friendly arrangements. That isnt straight forward. I'm not advacating that buses are removed immediately, as after all removing cars from the roads and increasing bus numbers will make traffic congestion non-existant, and there are far tighter controls on bus drivers than individual car users.

[rishaed]

I personally believe we should start manufacturing on a local scale rather than a global scale, so there is minimal point discussing it.

But the point is relevant to your argument. What i'm arguing is that this is impractical economically and socially. My other point is that it does not remove the root of the problem. You have made several statements now, and I am willing to debate with you. My argument does not base off of global/local but rather on the scale of the countries. What is practical and feasible for each of the countries here is what i'm going for. Even Germany with a highly sophisticated infrastructure of rail and bus for public transportation has many personal cars owned by the public. There is a balance for each country.
While this idea is feasible, (theoretically) it is not practical in any sense of the word.

Ok. First off, removing 10% of the world economy is a minor point. Economies are comparable not absolute. So the only real objection should be China who are improportionally affected.

Secondly, scale of countries is some what irrelevant too. I'd go far out to say that inter city links are very good with public transport and with investment from users would become fantastic.

The issue lies in local transport, remapping cities into user friendly arrangements. That isnt straight forward. I'm not advacating that buses are removed immediately, as after all removing cars from the roads and increasing bus numbers will make traffic congestion non-existant, and there are far tighter controls on bus drivers than individual car users.

Just a quick Question... What is your Definition of "City" in populous? Also what about Farmers, People who live in Rural Areas, and other non Urban Areas?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Just a quick Question... What is your Definition of "City" in populous? Also what about Farmers, People who live in Rural Areas, and other non Urban Areas?

To answer your question:

I personally believe we should start manufacturing on a local scale rather than a global scale

I include that farming should be local scale.

Now I'm being radical, and accept that were not close to this, but it should be the endeavour.

[thegreekdog]

I also like that both Players and Rish have admitted that abolishing cars is quite feasible, it just requires a little bit of thought and some alterations to infrastructure.

I think I need to quibble with your definitions of "little bit" and "some" in the statement above... unless you define "little bit" as "significant" and "some" as "costly and world-changing."

There is likely a natural inclination to people moving from non-city life to city life. There are some studies in this area suggesting that a significant portion of the world's population will be living in cities by 2020 (or some other year that I can't remember). I also think, anecdotally, that people who live in cities do not generally drive cars. My brother, for example, lives in the city and commutes to work via taxpayer-subsidized bus. As a related aside, my brother does own a car because he occasionally must travel outside the city for work or to visit family.

Therefore, as more people begin to move to cities, there will be less reliance on personal vehicles (other than for sport, entertainment, and/or luxury). But to accelerate the process will take significant thought and would be costly and world-changing (not the "little bit" and "some" modifiers indicated above).

[mrswdk]

I also like that both Players and Rish have admitted that abolishing cars is quite feasible, it just requires a little bit of thought and some alterations to infrastructure.

I think I need to quibble with your definitions of "little bit" and "some" in the statement above... unless you define "little bit" as "significant" and "some" as "costly and world-changing."

Why would infrastructure need to be changed significantly to accommodate a ban on cars? Taking cars off the road and replacing them with buses, for example, could probably be done without doing any more than buying a bunch of buses.

There is likely a natural inclination to people moving from non-city life to city life. There are some studies in this area suggesting that a significant portion of the world's population will be living in cities by 2020 (or some other year that I can't remember).

I don't know what you mean by 'significant' but already more than half the population of the world live in urban areas.

I also think, anecdotally, that people who live in cities do not generally drive cars.

Depends which city. London it seems like almost no one drives, Beijing there were cars everywhere.

[thegreekdog]

I also like that both Players and Rish have admitted that abolishing cars is quite feasible, it just requires a little bit of thought and some alterations to infrastructure.

I think I need to quibble with your definitions of "little bit" and "some" in the statement above... unless you define "little bit" as "significant" and "some" as "costly and world-changing."

Why would infrastructure need to be changed significantly to accommodate a ban on cars? Taking cars off the road and replacing them with buses, for example, could probably be done without doing any more than buying a bunch of buses.

There is likely a natural inclination to people moving from non-city life to city life. There are some studies in this area suggesting that a significant portion of the world's population will be living in cities by 2020 (or some other year that I can't remember).

I don't know what you mean by 'significant' but already more than half the population of the world live in urban areas.

I also think, anecdotally, that people who live in cities do not generally drive cars.

Depends which city. London it seems like almost no one drives, Beijing there were cars everywhere.

I'll make a list and edit as I think of more things:

(1) Car manufacturers will go out of business, costing the state significant tax revenue.
(2) Employees who work at car manufacturers will no longer have jobs, costing the state significant amounts of money in lost tax revenue and unemployment.
(3) Companies that sell cars will go out of business, costing the state significant tax revenue.
(4) Employees who work at car dealers will no longer have jobs, costing the state significant amounts of money in lost tax revenue and unemployment.
(5) Companies that manufacture car parts will go out of business, costing the state significant tax revenue.
(6) Employees who work at car part and accessories manufacturers will no longer have jobs, costing the state significant amounts of money in lost tax revenue and unemployment.
(7) Companies that sell car parts and accessories will go out of business, costing the state significant tax revenue.
(8) Employees who work at companies that sell car parts and accessories will no longer have jobs, costing the state significant amounts of money in lost tax revenue and unemployment.
(9) Many gas stations will go out of business, costing the state very significant tax revenue.
(10) Employees who work at gas stations will go out of business, costing the state significant amounts of money in lost tax revenue and unemployment.
(11) Significant amounts of buses will need to be purchased by the government, costing the state significant tax revenue.
(12) Significant amounts of bus operators will need to be employed by the government, costing the state significant tax revenue.
(13) Significant amounts of bus infrastructure (e.g. bus stops, depots, etc.) will need to be constructed by the government, costing the state significant tax revenue.
(14) RESERVED FOR TRAINS
(15) RESERVED FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE
(16) RESERVED FOR OIL COMPANIES AND EMPLOYEES

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Why is the economy so precious? Its just money, humanity has lost its way. Money is just paper or imaginary numbers on a screen. Dont let it rule.

[rishaed]

Why is the economy so precious? Its just money, humanity has lost its way. Money is just paper or imaginary numbers on a screen. Dont let it rule.

The economy is precious, because it essentially allows us to live. We do not have the skills of colonists here, nor have we the ecology to allow everyone to find food if we self implode the economy. While I agree that money is not very important, there comes a point where wisdom is the better part of discretion. A stable economy means that I can still put food on the table. Ultimately the reasons why the economy is precious, and why we don't make massive changes is for survival.
Like TGD and myself have pointed out, outright banning cars, would in effect destroy a significant part of a countries economy, which in turn effects many other sectors. These changes will destroy the livelihood of many people if done suddenly and altruistically. This would cause chaos, public unrest, and mass amounts of protests/riots.
So while i agree with you that money is not very precious, the economy is something to be careful with.

[thegreekdog]

Why is the economy so precious? Its just money, humanity has lost its way. Money is just paper or imaginary numbers on a screen. Dont let it rule.

That's a great question for a different thread. But, simply put, money is not just paper or imaginary numbers on a screen. You seem to have a significant problem with definitions (e.g. "little bit" and "some") and reality (e.g. how people are able to live).

In any event, please post links to your bank accounts and the passwords so we can all liberate you from your imaginary screen numbers. Thanks!

[tzor]

An interesting argument is that money is a unit of conversion between soft commodities which are subject to spoilage and hard commodities which are not.

So if I had an amount of iron nails and you have an amount of fresh chicken eggs, I could wait you out because the value of your commodity will drop as it reaches a spoilage point. I can hold my commodity indefinitely; you cannot. But if someone else exchanges your eggs for gold or gold based currency, you can now wait as long as I could until the price for my iron nails is agreeable to you. Money allows you to convert your soft commodity to a universally accepted hard commodity.

[Metsfanmax]

Money allows you to convert your soft commodity to a universally accepted hard commodity.

This is a true statement but that does not mean this is the purpose of money; it is merely one of its many functions that improves the efficiency of trade.

Also your eggs-to-nails analogy is kind of strange. If there are two people in the economy, one with nails and one with eggs, then it's not rational for the eggs person to change their price as the eggs near spoilage. If you want the eggs, you'll pay for them and use them before they spoil, and that's true regardless of how close they are to spoiling. If you don't want the eggs, you won't pay for them. There's no middle ground where you aren't sure if you want the eggs or not, because you're a rational agent and you know for sure whether you need eggs.

[hotfire]

in this thread economics pushes itself into another unrelated argument assuming itself to be the most important factor in any argument

[KoolBak]

I like eggs AND nails.

[2dimes]

I sure hope some of you got abortions in this thread because the hunting and fishing sucks.

[PLAYER57832]

No, not at all the same, except that in both cases, you assume the population is heavily urban and of a similar mindset.

Although the US could do a lot better on mass transport, it will never be like much of Europe because we are far, far more spread out and rural than in Europe. This is not fictional imagination, it is reality.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

USA = 81% urban
UK = 82%

No I'd say pretty conclusively that it is fictional imagination.

Try again... some ranches could cover most of the UK. Also, even "rural" England tends to be a lot closer to rail lines than much of the US.

Not saying the US cannot do better, but that comparison is a statistical comparison that ignores reality of what the statistics really mean.

Similarly, while hunting is a rich man's sport.. and just that, in Europe. Here in the US, it is very much what puts meat on some people's tables. Understand, I don't even completely mean those who hunt, though many really do depend it for food( we certainly do depend on that meat for our winter meals). I include the many people who sell sporting equipment, from the local gunsmith and gun stores to stores offering hunting apparel. Even if many who buy the "stuff" don't go hunting, or maybe hunt once or twice (and, yes perhaps on a game farm as opposed to a family farm or federal/state lands), without the "idea" of the "sportsman", the allure of those purchases would be heavily diminished. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with violence, it is pure sport.

How is this any different than all the other industries that have been altered by the introduction of mechanisation? Times change, career change. Get over yourself. Move on. Evolve. [/quote]Evolve into something lessor? Why?

I think preservation is far more evolved than industrial style steam-rolling. Besides, my point was that equating guns with violence everywhere is misguided, not to say you personally have to change your lifestyle (at least not for that reason)

But, the real point here is that you have to look at the specifics, not rely upon analogies, particularly when you don't really seem to even "get" the basic problems from the beginning.

No. YOU dont get it. You have admitted that hunting is a luxury. Time to change habits marginally and live differently. Guess what, you'll still enjoy life. [/quote]
How did I admit that? Its a luxury in some areas, not here.

I also like that both Players and Rish have admitted that abolishing cars is quite feasible, it just requires a little bit of thought and some alterations to infrastructure.

Not entirely, (parts of the US will pretty much always require some kind of individual style vehicle, though need not be a car as we now know them) but why would we not admit something sensible? Just because we disagree on other things? That is the kind of "logic" that is destroying not just our country, but society as a whole.. the idea that every idea has to fit into specific camps that somehow cannot cross.

[PLAYER57832]

That one will probably be taken serious too.

What about the trout? Though you're probably right if you're thinking we won't come by that soon.

We take our trout VERY seriously here .... (even if its mostly brookies)

Pennsylvania is even farther than or ee gone. Unlikely I am coming after them Brook Troiut.


I have only caught browns and rainbows so far. There are also Brook, Bull, Cut Throat and Lake here. I am working on getting a few of each of them.

lol.. sort of "tongue in cheek". Truth is, when it comes to trout, I am a westerner/northerner. I currently do not have a job in my field, in part because PA does no take trout habitat as a matter of serious import, despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary.... (but I have kept out of the western trout/Salmon politics for a while... better for my health since I am no longer out there).

[2dimes]

How's the Prussian Carp there? We are just starting to have problems from people releasing them here.