Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Productive vs the unproductive
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 14:30:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The productive vs. the unproductive
Walter E. Williams


"The Greatest Century That Ever Was: 25 Miraculous Trends of the Past 100 Years" is the appropriate title of a 1999 article authored by Stephen Moore and the late Julian L. Simon and published by the Washington-based Cato Institute. Let's highlight some of the phenomenal progress Americans made during the 20th century. During that century, life expectancy rose from 47 to 77 years of age. Deaths from infectious diseases fell from 700 to 50 per 100,000 of the population. Major killer diseases such as tuberculosis, polio, typhoid fever and whooping cough were virtually eliminated. Infant mortality plummeted.

The 20th century saw unprecedented material gains as well. Controlling for inflation, household assets rose from $6 trillion to $41 trillion between 1945 and 1998. Today, more than 98 percent of American homes have a telephone, electricity and a flush toilet. More than 70 percent of Americans own a car, a VCR, a microwave, air conditioning, cable TV, and a washer and dryer. In 1900, no homes had the modern conveniences of today. Today's poor Americans have choices that yesterday's millionaires could have only dreamt of, such as cell phones, computers and color television sets. Added to all this progress, most adults have twice as much leisure time as their turn-of-the-20th-century counterparts.

You say, "Williams, it would take an idiot to deny the human progress Americans made during the 20th century. What's your point?" The productive people who made this progress possible are often painted as villains. I'm talking about the innovators and the risk-takers, in a word -- entrepreneurs. Today's heroes are often seen as the people who attack entrepreneurs -- among them lawyers, politicians, media people, leftist organizations, college professors and others who often contribute little or nothing to human progress. My colleague, Thomas Sowell, calls the entrepreneurs, scientists and inventors the "doers" and their attackers the "talkers."

The talkers who attack the doers are glib and can turn clever phrases and thereby trick the gullible and uninformed, whether it's the general public through the mass media or judges and juries. For example, even if a particular drug has massive benefits, like saving tens of thousands of lives or reducing the suffering of tens of thousands of people, but a few people suffer or die, the talkers are ready to crucify the company. Their first charge is corporate greed.

The attack on the pharmaceutical industry is particularly vicious, led by lawyers looking to make a financial killing like their colleagues who sued the tobacco industry and Microsoft. One target of today's talkers is Merck drug company, the maker of Vioxx, because for some individuals it poses an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. But for other individuals, it is safe and effective for pain relief from arthritis. The operational question for any drug is whether its benefits exceed its costs -- not whether some people are harmed. Moreover, some patients would willingly accept the risk of heart attack and stroke to obtain relief from painful, crippling arthritis. Why should the FDA or the plaintiff's bar prevent them from doing so?

If we developed the practice of removing products from the market because some people are harmed by them, we might starve to death. Anaphylaxis is a sudden, severe, potentially fatal reaction that some people have to foods such as milk, wheat, soy, peanuts, fish, shellfish and eggs. Each year, food-induced anaphylaxis sends about 30,000 people to hospital emergency rooms and about 200 of them die. Since many people are harmed by these food items, should they be removed from our supermarket shelves? If not, why not? The next time we hear a talker attacking a doer, we just might ask: What have you done to further human progress?



 
Zacq Posted: Wed Apr 27 15:10:39 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Walter E. Williams

>More than 70 percent of Americans own a car, a VCR, a microwave, air conditioning, cable TV, and a washer and dryer. In 1900, no homes had the modern conveniences of today. Today's poor Americans have choices that yesterday's millionaires could have only dreamt of, such as cell phones, computers and color television sets. Added to all this progress, most adults have twice as much leisure time as their turn-of-the-20th-century counterparts.

I'd just like to say, before questions about the main point of the article begin, that it is opinion whether millions of people getting cell phones and TV sets is really a good thing, especially combined with the increased leisure time that is being wasted because of said items.

Whatever.

And I left the author name in the quote to point out that you, hif, didn't necessarily agree with that part of the article.


 
addi Posted: Wed Apr 27 15:27:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >Today's heroes are often seen as the people who attack entrepreneurs -- among them lawyers, politicians, media people, leftist organizations, college professors and others who often contribute little or nothing to human progress.

He lost me right there. Any valid points he might have had went right down the toilet.


*And i'm glad you keep putting up these columns. It does give us something of substance to discuss...other than hot dogs and/or fuzzy beavers
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 16:25:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I would like to point out that when I post these articles, I seldom agree with 100 percent of what is written in them, though I will usually agree with the gist of what's being said.

To Zacq: I think most people would agree that cell phones and tv's are an improvement over that fact that 100yrs ago, the working man had pretty much zero leisure time as the article states.
Whether or not watching TV is a waste of one's leisure time would be a matter of opinion. It could also depend of what is being watched on said TV.

To Addie: Almost every single article I have posted, you debunked the entire essay by disagreeing with one single paragraph or sentence. Kind of shallow if you ask me. If he makes valid points in his article elsewhere, I don't see how something else he may have said will negate them. A valid point is a valid point, period.
In any event, the paragraph you disagreed with is something we could discuss because I think he is on the money there.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Apr 27 16:55:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Walter E. Williams

>Today's heroes are often seen as the people who attack entrepreneurs -- among them lawyers, politicians, media people, leftist organizations, college professors and others who often contribute little or nothing to human progress.

I like how he lumps together the many leftist organizations (the term itself combines very diverse groups and is practically meaningless) who do and have done great things with the ones he takes offense with.

And college professors? We shouldn't consider teachers to be heroes?


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Apr 27 16:56:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>To Zacq: I think most people would agree that cell phones and tv's are an improvement over that fact that 100yrs ago, the working man had pretty much zero leisure time as the article states.
>Whether or not watching TV is a waste of one's leisure time would be a matter of opinion. It could also depend of what is being watched on said TV.

I was just saying, before I'd really gotten into the article, that I instantly disagreed the lifestyle television has brought is a good thing. For most households it has become the default activity to do, and coming from the son of a preschool teacher, is doing harm to children's artistic and social skills.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 17:59:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Walter E. Williams
>
>>Today's heroes are often seen as the people who attack entrepreneurs -- among them lawyers, politicians, media people, leftist organizations, college professors and others who often contribute little or nothing to human progress.
>
>I like how he lumps together the many leftist organizations (the term itself combines very diverse groups and is practically meaningless) who do and have done great things with the ones he takes offense with.
>
>And college professors? We shouldn't consider teachers to be heroes?
>
You mean like Ward Churchill ?
He's not saying ALL college professors or all lawyers. C'mon let's use our head a little here and try to get what he is saying without splitting hairs.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 18:01:09 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>
>I was just saying, before I'd really gotten into the article, that I instantly disagreed the lifestyle television has brought is a good thing. For most households it has become the default activity to do, and coming from the son of a preschool teacher, is doing harm to children's artistic and social skills.
>
"For most households it has become the default activity" - You have evidence of this ?
Most households ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 18:05:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Zacq said:
>>
>>I was just saying, before I'd really gotten into the article, that I instantly disagreed the lifestyle television has brought is a good thing. For most households it has become the default activity to do, and coming from the son of a preschool teacher, is doing harm to children's artistic and social skills.
>>
>"For most households it has become the default activity" - You have evidence of this ?
>Most households ?
I agree that for too many households this is true, but that doesn't mean that TV cannot be and is not a great learning tool.
As a preschool teacher your mom or dad should know the value of a Mister Rogers or Sesame Street among lots of other shows that have helped millions of children get a head start on learning.
I watch literally hours of the history channel and Discovery channel. I hope to get the National Geographic channel soon. The broadcast networks have very little for me.
I don't consider that time wasted.
Still it doesn't matter. The gist of the article was the fact that leisure time has been created by progress and technology, not what we do with it.


 
addi Posted: Wed Apr 27 18:08:41 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>To Addie: Almost every single article I have posted, you debunked the entire essay by disagreeing with one single paragraph or sentence. Kind of shallow if you ask me.

I'm a shallow person, hif.

I understand what you're point is though so I'll clarify. I don't like sweeping generalizations dismissing this group or that group in any op/ed article, by a conservative or a liberal. It taints their credibility in my view, and makes me immediately suspect of any point they're trying to make, valid or not. The sentence I copied has so many things wrong with it that I don't know where to start.

Fairness, accuracy, strict adherence to facts and balance can make for bland copy. It's much more exciting and interesting to make bold generalizations about some group, point your finger at them, and tell the reader they're what's wrong with America.
Every article i've read of yours the author does that at some point. Every talk show I listen to the hosts do it. I even heard Franken being guilty of this on Air America. They go over the top to stimulate contraversy and ratings, and so what if we mix in some some bias, lies, and discrimination along the way...it's more entertaining.

As Zacq has brought up, the whole notion of what is progress needs to be discussed anyway. Have we made great strides in medicine? Yes. Do we have more leisure time? Yes. Do most Americans own a car and a phone and a TV? Yes. Is this "progress" always a good thing? Does it always make the quality of our life better? Maybe, maybe not.
For example, go meet an african bushman that has none of the things we consider essential in our lives today and see if it's so black and white on which culture has a higher quality of life (not material possesions, but a state of being, a sense of inner happiness so to speak). Your author right off the bat just assumes that everything these entrepreneurs create for our society is good and equates to progress. That they are our modern day heros. I don't buy into that. Just the amount of resources and energy use that goes into making sure my cell phone has 50 different cover styles to choose from doesn't do anything to better my quality of life (Madison Avenue tells me it does though, but that's a whole nuther point).
It just boils down to me thinking these people you post here are too acedemically lazy, and more interested in raising the eyebrows and ire of the guillible public, than they are of enlightening me with the truth.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Apr 27 18:09:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Walter E. Williams

>Today's heroes are often seen as the people who attack entrepreneurs -- among them lawyers, politicians, media people, leftist organizations, college professors and others who often contribute little or nothing to human progress.

If he doesn't mean to group together all college professors and all leftist organizations he shouldn't word it that way. He could easily say he had no intention of doing that, but when you create something that implies ideas into the human mind that help your facts and allow you to deny allegations of falsehoods, you get... Fahrenheit 9/11.


And yes, I do think that a simple look at television ratings show that far too many Americans, especially youths, watch TV when they have nothing to do, and that they often have nothing to do because they spend too much time watching TV.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Apr 27 18:11:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The gist of the article was the fact that leisure time has been created by progress and technology, not what we do with it.

I know, I didn't want an argument about this, I was just pointing out that he was taking his opinion as fact.

Also, I think educational kid shows are fast being replaced by utter krap. I know television can be an educational tool, I was saying that for the majority of people who spend multiple hours each day in watching it it's not.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Apr 27 18:26:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Walter E. Williams

>One target of today's talkers is Merck drug company, the maker of Vioxx, because for some individuals it poses an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. But for other individuals, it is safe and effective for pain relief from arthritis. The operational question for any drug is whether its benefits exceed its costs -- not whether some people are harmed. Moreover, some patients would willingly accept the risk of heart attack and stroke to obtain relief from painful, crippling arthritis. Why should the FDA or the plaintiff's bar prevent them from doing so?

This from the Associated Press:

Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., withdrew Vioxx from the market last September after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking the drug for more than 18 months.

I guess Walter Williams didn't pick a very good example.


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Apr 27 19:01:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well, I agree in principle with /some/ and only some points. Yes, leisure time and the benifits of the industrial revolution are great within our society. And the detrimental aspects were largely resolved shortly after the beginning of the industrial revolution. However, to say that all these talkers are the bad elements of society is quite skewed.

The profs taught the inventors and the scientists. The politicians help to ensure laws are met, so that society can have some semblance of order. They also ensured that there is fair competition {in most cases} I mean, if you want a good article, be BALANCED. Not all of the people he lumped in the good pile ie. the inventors and the entrepeneurs were good. In fact, some were bad. And not all the people he lumped in the bad pile were bad. In many cases, they allowed the inventors and entrepeneurs to become what they were.

So, in short, some of what is being said is correct, but the method the author presents the information ruins any creditbility he had. Even if what he was saying was correct, he threw that out, when he threw the whole "lawyers, politicians, media people, leftist organizations, college professors and others who often contribute little or nothing to human progress." That ruined any credibility he had. Little or nothing? Many of the inventors were college profs. Many of the entrepeneurs were lawyers, or politicians. So ya.


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Apr 27 19:06:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "thereby trick the gullible and uninformed, whether it's the general public through the mass media or judges and juries." Wow, now the judges are gulliable, same with the juries. That sounds like an argument from a person that would say society isn't smart enough to govern itself, and that it should be put in the hands of the entrepeneurs and scientists, and inventors. May not have been his point, but again, it seems a bit uniformed.

Another point I think must be made. Walter E. Williams is a prof. From George Mason University. Must be one of those "talkers." He is also an internet columnist. Another one of those "talkers" Guess he's one of those people that does little or nothing for society.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 19:34:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>"thereby trick the gullible and uninformed, whether it's the general public through the mass media or judges and juries." Wow, now the judges are gulliable, same with the juries. That sounds like an argument from a person that would say society isn't smart enough to govern itself, and that it should be put in the hands of the entrepeneurs and scientists, and inventors. May not have been his point, but again, it seems a bit uniformed.
>
O.J. got off didn't he ?
>Another point I think must be made. Walter E. Williams is a prof. From George Mason University. Must be one of those "talkers." He is also an internet columnist. Another one of those "talkers" Guess he's one of those people that does little or nothing for society.
>
And he would never deny that either.

Since most of you came to GT looking for quotes, here's one most of you will be familiar with:
"those who can, do; those who cannot, teach"




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 19:39:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Walter E. Williams
>
>>One target of today's talkers is Merck drug company, the maker of Vioxx, because for some individuals it poses an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. But for other individuals, it is safe and effective for pain relief from arthritis. The operational question for any drug is whether its benefits exceed its costs -- not whether some people are harmed. Moreover, some patients would willingly accept the risk of heart attack and stroke to obtain relief from painful, crippling arthritis. Why should the FDA or the plaintiff's bar prevent them from doing so?
>
>This from the Associated Press:
>
>Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., withdrew Vioxx from the market last September after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking the drug for more than 18 months.
>
>I guess Walter Williams didn't pick a very good example.
>
It was the perfect example of the point he was trying to make. The attorneys that brought the lawsuit and pressure to remove it from the market were not interested in the health risks posed by it, they were only interested in money.
Vioxx is very important to a lot of people as the only painkiller that worked for them and now they cannot even make that choice for themselves.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Apr 27 19:45:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It was the perfect example of the point he was trying to make. The attorneys that brought the lawsuit and pressure to remove it from the market were not interested in the health risks posed by it, they were only interested in money.
>Vioxx is very important to a lot of people as the only painkiller that worked for them and now they cannot even make that choice for themselves.

Notice the Associated Press didn't say Vioxx doubled the chances for some patients, it did for everyone taking it for more than 18 months. It was thus determined that its benefits didn't outweigh its costs.

And the cases, at least the one from the article, were brought by people who were believed to have died in part due to Vioxx. And I'm not defending all lawyers.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 20:04:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>It was the perfect example of the point he was trying to make. The attorneys that brought the lawsuit and pressure to remove it from the market were not interested in the health risks posed by it, they were only interested in money.
>>Vioxx is very important to a lot of people as the only painkiller that worked for them and now they cannot even make that choice for themselves.
>
>Notice the Associated Press didn't say Vioxx doubled the chances for some patients, it did for everyone taking it for more than 18 months. It was thus determined that its benefits didn't outweigh its costs.
>
Determined by who ?
Assuming you live in constant pain from crippling arthritis, who would you allow to make that determination for you?
If it were me, my answer would be no fucking body, that's who.
Me and only me can decide if I should risk a cardiovascular event to alleviate constant pain.
>And the cases, at least the one from the article, were brought by people who were believed to have died in part due to Vioxx. And I'm not defending all lawyers.
>
And I'm not saying all lawyers are skanks, but I suspect most of the high profile ones are.


 
addi Posted: Wed Apr 27 20:05:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

> "those who can, do; those who cannot, teach"

ouch
that hit below the belt


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Apr 27 20:07:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>O.J. got off didn't he ?
.
>>
>And he would never deny that either.
>

So, the intent of the article is to make a point about the doers and the talkers, so in essence, some parts of the article are attacking positions he himself holds?


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Apr 27 20:09:13 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And the point with oj, ok so if he was guilty, that was one case. We should never base a view of society on one case. Do we assume all americans are like good ol' tim mcvey (sp?)


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Apr 27 20:44:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Since most of you came to GT looking for quotes, here's one most of you will be familiar with:
> "those who can, do; those who cannot, teach"

You know what, that's right! Let's teach it to all future generations and we'll never have to have teachers again.

Teachers are generally people that have the ability of others to 'do' but also like working with kids or college students. It's really a matter of what type of people skills a person has. If you're really saying teachers are just people that aren't good enough for anything else, then.. I don't know what I'd say, as I'm pretty sure you meant something else.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 21:00:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  well, considering that I just married a teacher, what do you think ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 21:02:44 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>
>>>
>>O.J. got off didn't he ?
>.
>>>
>>And he would never deny that either.
>>
>
>So, the intent of the article is to make a point about the doers and the talkers, so in essence, some parts of the article are attacking positions he himself holds?
>
Do you really think he was impugning ALL teacher and lawyers ?
Are you dense enough to believe that ?
I doubt it.
He was attacking the ones that try to make their way by attacking the doers of the world.
And by and large those particular attackers are ones who do not produce anything of their own.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 27 21:03:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>> "those who can, do; those who cannot, teach"
>
>ouch
>that hit below the belt
>
exemption for addie
:-)


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Apr 27 21:16:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Do you really think he was impugning ALL teacher and lawyers ?
>Are you dense enough to believe that ?
>I doubt it.

One more time.

We (sorry if you don't want to be in we anyone) are not saying he thinks everyone from those groups is bad. He, however, has worded it in a way that gives someone reading the article false ideas. He's representing something in sort of a vague way that could easily be argued to be something different, when he should be clear.

And I don't really think you find all teachers to be inferior or something, so cut the 'those who cannot teach' krap.


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Apr 27 22:28:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>Do you really think he was impugning ALL teacher and lawyers ?
>Are you dense enough to believe that ?
>I doubt it.



I am certainly not dense. Are you? So, if he's got a problem with only a few, then don't use absolutes. Thats what creates a balanced article. This is the reason the American media and American society have become so polarized. Its always absolutes, never the middle ground. ie. there are a few teachers, lawyers...ect, as opposed to Teachers, lawyers, ect. See the difference. If you don't want it to come off as all, then don't say all. He made reference to how easily the public can be swayed. Well, its more likely when an article is written like that.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 28 06:24:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>I am certainly not dense. Are you? So, if he's got a problem with only a few, then don't use absolutes. Thats what creates a balanced article. This is the reason the American media and American society have become so polarized. Its always absolutes, never the middle ground. ie. there are a few teachers, lawyers...ect, as opposed to Teachers, lawyers, ect. See the difference. If you don't want it to come off as all, then don't say all. He made reference to how easily the public can be swayed. Well, its more likely when an article is written like that.
>
I certainly did not get it that way.
Read the passage again.
He used the term "among them".
That is not an absolute where I come from.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Apr 28 14:26:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes it can and probably would be accurately interpreted that way, but the idea that one gets in their mind when reading the whole article and coming across this sentence in the beginning is that these large groups and these types of people in general are the problem.

That was the vast majority of complaint (not counting the people who just lied about things) against Fahrenheit 9/11 - people said that parts of the movie gave them the impression of something that one could argue was never said; however, the way facts and ideas were worded deliberately carried other meaning.

Sorry I'm doing this on a Mac. It's tough.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 28 14:34:13 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Yes it can and probably would be accurately interpreted that way, but the idea that one gets in their mind when reading the whole article and coming across this sentence in the beginning is that these large groups and these types of people in general are the problem.
>
That's called reading something into it that isn't there.
Where exactly does the term "among them" get to mean "all of them" ?

>That was the vast majority of complaint (not counting the people who just lied about things) against Fahrenheit 9/11 - people said that parts of the movie gave them the impression of something that one could argue was never said; however, the way facts and ideas were worded deliberately carried other meaning.
>
Not exactly the same thing. F9/11 was skewed deliberatly to give false impressions.
>Sorry I'm doing this on a Mac. It's tough.
>
No prob


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 28 15:46:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i didn't read everyone's responses as i don't have the time for it right now. Sorry if this has been said but that was the sappiest piece of crap writing that simply came across like an insurance company comercial. All of this stuff on human development and progress all to support the use of a pain relief drug that causes heart attacks and strokes. The man obviously invested a whole lot of money into this drug that didn't get FDA approval and now he's crying about it and pointing figures at some of the most educated members of society.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 28 15:49:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>i didn't read everyone's responses as i don't have the time for it right now. Sorry if this has been said but that was the sappiest piece of crap writing that simply came across like an insurance company comercial. All of this stuff on human development and progress all to support the use of a pain relief drug that causes heart attacks and strokes. The man obviously invested a whole lot of money into this drug that didn't get FDA approval and now he's crying about it and pointing figures at some of the most educated members of society.

ooh, or one of those comercials where it shows a good-looking woman running on the beach with the sun going down turning the water red, and then the woman slows down and says, "It's not fun living with genital herpies..."


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 28 15:51:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Silentmind said:
>>
>>>>
>>>O.J. got off didn't he ?
>>.
>>>>
>>>And he would never deny that either.
>>>
>>
>>So, the intent of the article is to make a point about the doers and the talkers, so in essence, some parts of the article are attacking positions he himself holds?
>>
>Do you really think he was impugning ALL teacher and lawyers ?
>Are you dense enough to believe that ?
>I doubt it.
>He was attacking the ones that try to make their way by attacking the doers of the world.
>And by and large those particular attackers are ones who do not produce anything of their own.

how the fuck can you make this last statement? what are you basing this on?

those people who attack "the doers of the world" also consider themselves to be "the doers" by protecting people who sell harmful products


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 28 15:52:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i can't believe you guys are all looking at this piece of propagandist / commercial crap as if it were a scholarly essay.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 28 15:55:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>> "those who can, do; those who cannot, teach"
>
>ouch
>that hit below the belt

that quote's such crap. college professors are required to research / work on scholarly articles while they teach.

and gradeschool teachers do it cause they like kids.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 28 15:57:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Zacq said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>It was the perfect example of the point he was trying to make. The attorneys that brought the lawsuit and pressure to remove it from the market were not interested in the health risks posed by it, they were only interested in money.
>>>Vioxx is very important to a lot of people as the only painkiller that worked for them and now they cannot even make that choice for themselves.
>>
>>Notice the Associated Press didn't say Vioxx doubled the chances for some patients, it did for everyone taking it for more than 18 months. It was thus determined that its benefits didn't outweigh its costs.
>>
>Determined by who ?
>Assuming you live in constant pain from crippling arthritis, who would you allow to make that determination for you?
>If it were me, my answer would be no fucking body, that's who.
>Me and only me can decide if I should risk a cardiovascular event to alleviate constant pain.

and i'm assuming you're all for the legalization of crack, drunk driving and the removal of the myriad of other laws out there enforced and imposed on us to promote our health and that of everyone around us?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 28 15:58:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>
>how the fuck can you make this last statement? what are you basing this on?
>
>those people who attack "the doers of the world" also consider themselves to be "the doers" by protecting people who sell harmful products
>
you mean guys like Ward Churchill or Jesse Jackson ?
Your right some are looking out for us, but some are just self serving pricks, most are self serving pricks.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 28 16:03:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>and i'm assuming you're all for the legalization of crack, drunk driving and the removal of the myriad of other laws out there enforced and imposed on us to promote our health and that of everyone around us?
>
Of course I'm for drunk driving who wouldn't be ?
I mean really, who was ever hurt by a drunk driver ?
How insightful of you to notice that about me.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 28 16:23:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>
>>how the fuck can you make this last statement? what are you basing this on?
>>
>>those people who attack "the doers of the world" also consider themselves to be "the doers" by protecting people who sell harmful products
>>
>you mean guys like Ward Churchill or Jesse Jackson ?
>Your right some are looking out for us, but some are just self serving pricks, most are self serving pricks.

i asked above how you can validly make this claim. and i'll ask again. How can you say "most are self-serving pricks"? I don't know who ward churchill is and i don't know much about jesse jackson... could you enlighten a brother?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 28 16:36:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Asswipe said:
>>>
>>>how the fuck can you make this last statement? what are you basing this on?
>>>
>>>those people who attack "the doers of the world" also consider themselves to be "the doers" by protecting people who sell harmful products
>>>
>>you mean guys like Ward Churchill or Jesse Jackson ?
>>Your right some are looking out for us, but some are just self serving pricks, most are self serving pricks.
>
>i asked above how you can validly make this claim. and i'll ask again. How can you say "most are self-serving pricks"? I don't know who ward churchill is and i don't know much about jesse jackson... could you enlighten a brother?
>
I'll ask you then, are people too stupid to protect themselves ?
Shouldn't they be allowed to decide whether or not what is too risky and what is not ?
Can you give me one good reason why marijuana is illegal and alchohol is not ?
Read the last paragraph of the essay.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 28 17:43:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Asswipe said:
>>>>
>>>>how the fuck can you make this last statement? what are you basing this on?
>>>>
>>>>those people who attack "the doers of the world" also consider themselves to be "the doers" by protecting people who sell harmful products
>>>>
>>>you mean guys like Ward Churchill or Jesse Jackson ?
>>>Your right some are looking out for us, but some are just self serving pricks, most are self serving pricks.
>>
>>i asked above how you can validly make this claim. and i'll ask again. How can you say "most are self-serving pricks"? I don't know who ward churchill is and i don't know much about jesse jackson... could you enlighten a brother?
>>
>I'll ask you then, are people too stupid to protect themselves ?
>Shouldn't they be allowed to decide whether or not what is too risky and what is not ?

well, the main factor is whether their actions can danger other people in the process of making dumb decisions. besides that, who's to stop me from packaging rat poison, putting it into a box and selling it to people telling them it'll give them eternal life? the average joe does not have the time, recources, or knowledge to test drugs on lab mice or whatever, so allowing people more qualified then them to do that seems convenient. of course it also opens up various boxes with whether those people working in the FDA labs are so virtuous. but i'm, for the most part, against taking drugs like aspirin and other pain relievers that just block receptors in the body. i can deal with pain.

>Can you give me one good reason why marijuana is illegal and alchohol is not ?

because aside from the bodily harm which both drugs cause, marijuana also can potentially lead to schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder and other mental illnesses. that is a good question though, as i enjoy a good smoke every now and then. but it's related to what i said above, while the immediate affects may be to most people's likings, if enough studies show the long term effects to be quite negligible then restrictions need to be put in place. further, i believe the availability and relative cheap price of marijuana is the main reason why it is still illegal. it's just so damned easy to get that people don't really put up a fuss about it. while the government seems foolish, as they could be making boatloads taxing the stuff, it's prolly just not up there on the priority list with hunting oil bleeding terrorists.

>Read the last paragraph of the essay.

yes, and you can also choke on food... get serious though. anaphyxlaxis isn't caused by a human's creation (a drug) interacting negatively with one's body chemistry, it's the body just simply fucking up. like that disease where your blood can't clot. not to mention that parallel completely scoffs at the idea of weighing benefits and negatives, since, well, he says people should not eat...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 28 17:59:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>well, the main factor is whether their actions can danger other people in the process of making dumb decisions. besides that, who's to stop me from packaging rat poison, putting it into a box and selling it to people telling them it'll give them eternal life? the average joe does not have the time, recources, or knowledge to test drugs on lab mice or whatever, so allowing people more qualified then them to do that seems convenient. of course it also opens up various boxes with whether those people working in the FDA labs are so virtuous. but i'm, for the most part, against taking drugs like aspirin and other pain relievers that just block receptors in the body. i can deal with pain.
>
>>Can you give me one good reason why marijuana is illegal and alchohol is not ?
>
>because aside from the bodily harm which both drugs cause, marijuana also can potentially lead to schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder and other mental illnesses. that is a good question though, as i enjoy a good smoke every now and then. but it's related to what i said above, while the immediate affects may be to most people's likings, if enough studies show the long term effects to be quite negligible then restrictions need to be put in place. further, i believe the availability and relative cheap price of marijuana is the main reason why it is still illegal. it's just so damned easy to get that people don't really put up a fuss about it. while the government seems foolish, as they could be making boatloads taxing the stuff, it's prolly just not up there on the priority list with hunting oil bleeding terrorists.
>
None of your reasons are good enough.
As long as you hurt no one but yourself the govt has no right to tell you what you can and cannot take or do.
If I want to risk a heart attack to alleviate chronic pain, that's my choice not yours or anyone else's.
Marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as achohol anyway.
>
>>Read the last paragraph of the essay.
>
>yes, and you can also choke on food... get serious though. anaphyxlaxis isn't caused by a human's creation (a drug) interacting negatively with one's body chemistry, it's the body just simply fucking up. like that disease where your blood can't clot. not to mention that parallel completely scoffs at the idea of weighing benefits and negatives, since, well, he says people should not eat...
>
Doesn't matter, the results are the same are they not ? And how do you know the allergies that cause anaphyxlaxis are not caused by something that is man-made such as preservatives or pesticides ? Still, it doesn't matter because the logic is still the same as with Vioxx. If it can cause problems, it should be removed.


 
kurohyou Posted: Thu Apr 28 19:27:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Also, I think educational kid shows are fast being replaced by utter krap.

This is true...I mean in this season of Sesame Street, Cookie Monster is going to start eating healthy....the outrage!!!

For that its worth...

Note: Serious Post to follow later after I read and see what has been said in an effort not to repeat what has already been said and not take up precious bandwidth.




 
addi Posted: Thu Apr 28 20:09:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>As long as you hurt no one but yourself the govt has no right to tell you what you can and cannot take or do.

That's not very republican of you to keep saying, hif.
: )

The government infringes on our freedoms all the time, justifying it on protecting the majority from real harm and POTENTIAL harm. It's the ol' civics issue of limiting our personal freedoms for the greater good.
Look at the patriot act. The feds can infiltrate groups, tap your phone...basically listen and watch everything you do if they even suspect that you have the potential to do harm.

This administration wants to ultimately make it illegal for a woman to have the choice of abortion based on their opinion that the fertilized egg has the potential to become a person. They make the same arguement against stem cell research.
This administration wanted to add a Constitutional amendment making marriage between same sexes illegal. So tell me, is my younger brother and his 12 year male live in companion doing harm to anyone? The government certainly put their nose smack in the middle of that issue.
It's very clear that the republicans are the loudest complainers in euthenasia cases across the country. The person decides that life isn't worth living due to the pain of a terminal illness (not hurting anyone but themselves remember), but the government steps in and says no, you can't do that...it's immoral.

My point isn't to argue for or against the above examples. My point is that you're adament about shouting from the rooftops that the government keep out of our personal choices (as long as we would only do harm to ourselves) seems a little hypocritical to me. It seems to me that you support the feds infringing on our personal rights as long as it's an issue you agree with, but god help the politician that tries to restrict my "right" to own a handgun.

The government must step in and place restrictions on our personal freedoms to preserve the greater good. The tricky part is knowing when to butt in and when to leave us to our own devices.





 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Apr 29 13:37:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>None of your reasons are good enough.

oh, okay then. those are the reasons why the FDA is in place and has the power that it has, because people don't have the knowledge and/or time to fully test drugs before using them. i, for one, am greatful that people test these products to the max before releasing them to the public.

>As long as you hurt no one but yourself the govt has no right to tell you what you can and cannot take or do.

well, how do you feel about euthenasia being illegal? it is, afterall, the ultimate relief of stress/torment/pain. I see your point, and maybe i'd side with you if i have ever been in the situation of those arthritic ridden people who don't want to take the assortment of other drugs available. which there are quite a number of treatments involving drugs, excersizes and certain diets.
http://www.arthritis.realage.com/content.aspx/topic/31


>If I want to risk a heart attack to alleviate chronic pain, that's my choice not yours or anyone else's.
>Marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as achohol anyway.

i think that's debatable. as i said, marijuana can help promote various mental health disorders on top of causing lung cancer and tainting the immune system's abilities. alcohol is also harmful, no doubt.

also, not near as many people rely on pot as they do on alcohol. this is certainly the case in college, although a fair amount do smoke regularly, people drink far more.

>>
>>>Read the last paragraph of the essay.
>>
>>yes, and you can also choke on food... get serious though. anaphyxlaxis isn't caused by a human's creation (a drug) interacting negatively with one's body chemistry, it's the body just simply fucking up. like that disease where your blood can't clot. not to mention that parallel completely scoffs at the idea of weighing benefits and negatives, since, well, he says people should not eat...
>>
>Doesn't matter, the results are the same are they not ? And how do you know the allergies that cause anaphyxlaxis are not caused by something that is man-made such as preservatives or pesticides ? Still, it doesn't matter because the logic is still the same as with Vioxx. If it can cause problems, it should be removed.

no, it's not the same. In the vioxx situation, if you don't take the drug, you end up w/ aching joints. in the anaphyxlaxis situation, stopping eatting means you end up dead. if we're talking about weighing benefits and negatives of alleviating possible negative outcomes, then it's obvious how unfair and absurd that parallel is.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 29 13:53:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>
>no, it's not the same. In the vioxx situation, if you don't take the drug, you end up w/ aching joints. in the anaphyxlaxis situation, stopping eatting means you end up dead. if we're talking about weighing benefits and negatives of alleviating possible negative outcomes, then it's obvious how unfair and absurd that parallel is.
>
No one said stop eating everything, just certain foods known to trigger allergies severe enough to cause death.
But that really doesn't matter because it's not going to happen.
Ultimately the winners here will be the ones with the best lobbyists.


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Apr 29 13:59:14 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>
>>no, it's not the same. In the vioxx situation, if you don't take the drug, you end up w/ aching joints. in the anaphyxlaxis situation, stopping eatting means you end up dead. if we're talking about weighing benefits and negatives of alleviating possible negative outcomes, then it's obvious how unfair and absurd that parallel is.
>>
>No one said stop eating everything, just certain foods known to trigger allergies severe enough to cause death.
>But that really doesn't matter because it's not going to happen.
>Ultimately the winners here will be the ones with the best lobbyists.

i don't see what lobbyists have to do w/ the FDA in the first place. i'm not claiming to know anything about the procedure for getting drugs on the market though.

the man said, "If we developed the practice of removing products from the market because some people are harmed by them, we might starve to death."


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 29 14:43:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Asswipe said:
>>>
>>>no, it's not the same. In the vioxx situation, if you don't take the drug, you end up w/ aching joints. in the anaphyxlaxis situation, stopping eatting means you end up dead. if we're talking about weighing benefits and negatives of alleviating possible negative outcomes, then it's obvious how unfair and absurd that parallel is.
>>>
>>No one said stop eating everything, just certain foods known to trigger allergies severe enough to cause death.
>>But that really doesn't matter because it's not going to happen.
>>Ultimately the winners here will be the ones with the best lobbyists.
>
>i don't see what lobbyists have to do w/ the FDA in the first place. i'm not claiming to know anything about the procedure for getting drugs on the market though.
>
The pharmaceutical companies all have lobbyists as do the consumer advocacy groups.
>the man said, "If we developed the practice of removing products from the market because some people are harmed by them, we might starve to death."
>
Yes he did, but did you really take that literally ?
All he was doing was showing the flaw in that logic.


 
Zacq Posted: Fri Apr 29 19:09:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>This is true...I mean in this season of Sesame Street, Cookie Monster is going to start eating healthy....the outrage!!!

More and more kids are watching Spongebob and other krap and caring less and less about the Street of the Seasame.

And Cookie Monster is my absolute favorite telvision/movie character of all time.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]