What a fantastic example of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
1,709 karma · joined March 29, 2010
If you would like to contact me, my email address is stubaird@hotmail.com
Most writing intended to be convincing (see marketing copy, political rhetoric etc) steers well clear of the facts or twists them so as to be unreliable. That doesn't make it any less convincing.
It is easy to notice when you disagree with the writer's point, but I don't think having a noble purpose automatically makes a piece of writing a "masterpiece".
It was emotive and brought attention to a terrible situation. But on objective measures of quality journalism, I see better articles daily in tabloid newspapers.
If the article wasn't so emotionally effective (and we didn't agree with its point of view) it might be more obvious that it was full of half-truths, weasel words and confusing narration.
I must confess a certain amount of cognitive dissonance seeing middle-aged men in tailored suits scoring heroin on the street!
Unfortunately when cocktails are based on nasty components, they often end up trying to disguise the spirit with sugary mixers like fruit juice or coke.
If you're interested in cocktails and don't mind diving in the deep end, try an authentic Sazerac:
http://www.esquire.com/drinks/sazerac-drink-recipe
Remember: the point is to highlight the primary spirit, so start with something good: http://www.anchordistilling.com/spirits/old-potrero-straight...
Theft has a specific meaning which you should learn before you make broad, sweeping, incorrect statements about it.
Even if your analogy had any relevance to this copyright dispute, it doesn't follow that theft has occurred. Giving a bad cheque is not theft. Giving a bad cheque with a certain intention may amount to fraud.
1. Defaulting on a contract is, generally speaking, a civil matter and has nothing to do with theft.
2. There is no contract here, implied or explicit.
3. Buzzfeed haven't physically taken anything from the OP intending to permanently deprive him of it.
You seem to have received a few downvotes unfortunately, but I assume that is because your post is mainly bad metaphors supporting a faulty argument.
Edit: line breaks.
Theft has a meaning which involves "taking with an intent to deprive the owner of their rightful possession". Sure I understand you when you misuse the word, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
My response to this is to say the OP is using extortion to squeeze money out of Buzzfeed with the threat of expensive lawsuits.
That makes him sound like a real bastard doesn't it? Because it isn't really extortion, it is a legitimate attempt to settle a legal dispute. My answer is... let's use words as accurately as we can, rather than twisting them to make our point.
The lien holder would then have sent notices and warnings that the debt needed to be paid. Eventually after no response, it filed foreclosure proceedings in the court (at some significant cost). At that point, the son decided to pay the original tax bill, however the holder of the lien presumably wanted its legal costs paid before it would surrender the lien.
What happened next was very unjust. But would make more sense if the article was clear on the timeline of events.
I meant to say that as a citizen, this is impossible to stop. I say that as someone who will vote Wikileaks on Saturday. But in realistic terms, unfortunately there are only two viable sides in the legislative house. Polls (and consequently betting markets) don't even anticipate a single seat going to a minor party at this election.
We had some issues in the past with some very high-profile sports people setting up "charitable funds" which undertook a lot of fundraising and tax deductible activities without actually doing any philanthropy. That undermines trust in organisations who actually help people (Salvation Army, World Vision etc).
I agree that BIG creates incentives... that is the point of all social policy in the history of ever. But the contrast here is that current policy can make positive actions (working, investing, personal development) a net loss to a family or individual who attempts them. THAT is the definition of a perverse incentive.
Whatever you think about Assange, at least he can be relied upon to oppose: internet censorship, technologically retarded broadband infrastructure and sexual consent laws.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013...
"The answer, in part at least, may be the lobbying power of church conservatives, the Catholic Church in particular, and the office of Sydney Cardinal George Pell, more particularly still."
"And the Victorian and Tasmanian-based Churches of Christ Community Care has begun an online petition to save the commission, warning that the Coalition alternative would be ''an advisory body with no teeth''. That, say critics, appears to be the point."
More likely some back-room deal has been done with vested interests and the implementation of this policy somehow benefits them (financially or politically).
It is likely a combination of: rightsholder companies who will eventually twist the filters to block internet-based competition, large IT contracting companies who will get lucrative contracts for implementing it, and (tin-foil hat time) the Catholic church.
There are some VERY skeezy links between the federal opposition and the Australian Catholic church which see the church hold significant lobbying power over LNP policies. See: marriage equality, abortion rights, royal commission into child sexual abuse etc.
As a small, uncontroversial example, the current government handed over regulation of charities (including churches) to an independent regulator last year. The Catholic Church in particular hates being under the thumb of a regulator it doesn't have in its own back pocket. Conveniently the LNP plans to scrap the regulator if they win the election. Even mainstream newspapers are reporting that this is at the behest of Cardinal George Pell:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/bad-liberal-policy-will-damag...
This issue is regularly floated by both "sides" of politics, usually to much criticism (on both technical and moral grounds). It is like the Hydra - chop off one head and it will simply grow two more. This time the policy announcement is especially reprehensible, coming 48 hours before an election which is all but decided in advance and buried in fine-print.
No doubt the new government will announce that it has "a clear mandate" to implement the filter as it was tucked away in their last-minute policy announcements.
My understanding is the median household income in the US is approx. $50,000 - about 32 years' worth of work to equal the (minimum) earnings of an NFL draftee.
They're hardly struggling, even if the contract isn't renewed and they have to find another job.
I guess my problem is that whenever examples are provided which contradict the model as you proposed it you decide to "clarify" the definitions so as to exclude those examples. Maybe that's the argument you originally intended to make, but it's not actually what you said.
And now you're just shifting the goalposts. You never mentioned anything about democracy in the grandparent post. I would also note that Germany is democratic.
The idea under discussion is a payout to everyone. Including Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. That's why it's called "guaranteed".
The examples I gave were situations where people did something against their own interests because the current system of welfare provision is broken. Maybe that is inevitable; maybe the system we have is better than any alternative.
But ask yourself if a BIG were implemented:
Would my friend still live with his elderly parents? Would my colleague's secretary have quit? Would my acquaintance have been forced into a degrading simulation of a job search he would never succeed at?
Yes, maybe you won't have children born purely as a cynical money-grabbing exercise. But people who actually want children (aka the people you want having children) will have them regardless.
They may have to budget for them or, I don't know, get a job.
The idea is that you can live and eat without the rigamarole of food stamps/qualifying for a benefit program etc. Introducing complexity such as investment programs and sliding scales for families is not productive and, in my view, counter to the underlying principle.
Children have vastly lower living expenses than adults (or more correctly - the basic marginal cost of adding a child to a household is negligible).
There is no reliable way to ensure that income is actually spent on that child.
It is apparent that some parents (for want of a better word) already see children as a benefits-magnet.
This gives a viable alternative to working a productive job and earning a good wage: pump out 9 kids by the age of 21 and enjoy a sweet $100k salary until they come of age themselves. You may safely neglect them in the meantime and pass any costs thereof, such as incarceration or hospitalisation, onto the state.
I think a much better approach is to limit a basic income to adults (or those financially independent of guardians) and give every child a Finnish-style baby box.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22751415
Limits the financial impact of a child, and has very minimal opportunity for abuse.
Some (true) personal examples: a friend of mine is moderately disabled and lives with his elderly parents. He wants (and they desperately want for him) to be able to live independently in a small apartment so that he can develop coping skills which will serve him when they are no longer around. His parents have the means to help him buy an apartment, but doing so would disqualify him from receiving any disability pension (including free health care).
A colleague of mine once employed a young woman as a secretary/admin assistant. One day her family advised him that they had arranged a marriage for her and as she was no longer living with them she and her new husband would both qualify for unemployment benefits. If my colleague refused to pay her the equivalent of two unemployment benefits (after tax) she would resign. The next week she did.
I used to know a guy who was what I would term chronically unemployable. He had no obvious disability but was seemingly unable to accomplish anything without having his hand held (it was a severe issue, not a joke). As an example, I actually couldn't trust him to fetch a plate from the kitchen. He was unsuited for either technical or menial work because he needed to be instructed down to the barest minutiae. Nice chap otherwise.
He naturally ended up on unemployment benefits and attended fortnightly reporting sessions. He was required to apply for 5 jobs each fortnight which he would be duly rejected from, then report back on his results. I'm convinced that the sheer brutal pointlessness of the process crushed him to the point where he took his own life.
Perhaps a basic income would create other perverse incentives, but it is clear to me that the current system is beyond broken.