EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ePZGWvwvH_0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Funny but True Video
- Thread starter EddieS'04
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
MikeSondra Grossen
Well-Known Member
HA! I enjoyed that~
Sondra
Sondra
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
I enjoyed how well spoken and his calm demeanor. Touching on some very iritating issues...:supercool:
Yep! He hit the nail squarely on the head!
I also like his opening question "Are you Pro-Choice?"...When she said "Yes", that really made it hard for her to give any good answers as to why we as American consumers do not have the right to choose what products we want to buy! Simple answer...The US Governement has gotten way to big and is overstepping it's boundries
...Rich
I also like his opening question "Are you Pro-Choice?"...When she said "Yes", that really made it hard for her to give any good answers as to why we as American consumers do not have the right to choose what products we want to buy! Simple answer...The US Governement has gotten way to big and is overstepping it's boundries
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
There are a lot of people that are pro-choice on many things, but anti-choice on others, and because of that it seems easy to get them to contradict themselves.
Still, it is a good video, and I agree that regulations on consumer products like these are often ill-conceived.
I just think that the general argument presented (if you support abortion how can you also not support consumer free choice?) is rather naive to the point of being somewhat insulting. The world and its issues are not so simple as to have a single set of rules that fit for everything (everything should be free; everything should be regulated).
TJR
Still, it is a good video, and I agree that regulations on consumer products like these are often ill-conceived.
I just think that the general argument presented (if you support abortion how can you also not support consumer free choice?) is rather naive to the point of being somewhat insulting. The world and its issues are not so simple as to have a single set of rules that fit for everything (everything should be free; everything should be regulated).
TJR
TJR,
It indeed may be an over simplification, but it is certainly not naive.
She wants to be free to make choices about her life (Pro-Choice), but wants to take our choices away by regulating what consumer products we can buy. The only real difference is one is a moral issue and the other is a consumer issue. In all cases it is one group wanting to control or regulate other's.
As for attempting to save electricity by banning incandescent bulbs, or controlling water useage but eco-flush toilets...I think we should regulate how the power companies and water companies price their services.
Why do electric companies charge lower rates for consumers that use more electricity? If you use less than 1000 Kwh's in a month you pay a higher rate per Kwh, and you often have to pay a $10 service fee. If you use >1000 Kwh's they charge you less per Kwh and waive the service fees??? Then when we have high usage because of the 70+ days of >100 degree heat, they threaten rolling black-outs because they cannot provide that much power??
I use a lot of compact flourescent bulbs but not so much to save electricity as it is to avoid having to constantly change bulbs every few months. It's great that they can save electicity, but if I don't use >1000 Kwh's I end up paying more for my electric bill? If you use less electricity, you pay more and the electric company makes more money??? That does not sound like I have much choice.
The new lower water usage toilets don't work worth a damn, so you often end up flushing 2 or 3 times...where's the water savings in that?
About 10 years ago I did a bathroom remodel at my old house and we installed an expensive modern 1.5 gal flush toilet. A month after the bathroom was completed I took out that expensive toilet because it was not doing the job and I put the old one back in.
...Rich
It indeed may be an over simplification, but it is certainly not naive.
She wants to be free to make choices about her life (Pro-Choice), but wants to take our choices away by regulating what consumer products we can buy. The only real difference is one is a moral issue and the other is a consumer issue. In all cases it is one group wanting to control or regulate other's.
As for attempting to save electricity by banning incandescent bulbs, or controlling water useage but eco-flush toilets...I think we should regulate how the power companies and water companies price their services.
Why do electric companies charge lower rates for consumers that use more electricity? If you use less than 1000 Kwh's in a month you pay a higher rate per Kwh, and you often have to pay a $10 service fee. If you use >1000 Kwh's they charge you less per Kwh and waive the service fees??? Then when we have high usage because of the 70+ days of >100 degree heat, they threaten rolling black-outs because they cannot provide that much power??
I use a lot of compact flourescent bulbs but not so much to save electricity as it is to avoid having to constantly change bulbs every few months. It's great that they can save electicity, but if I don't use >1000 Kwh's I end up paying more for my electric bill? If you use less electricity, you pay more and the electric company makes more money??? That does not sound like I have much choice.
The new lower water usage toilets don't work worth a damn, so you often end up flushing 2 or 3 times...where's the water savings in that?
About 10 years ago I did a bathroom remodel at my old house and we installed an expensive modern 1.5 gal flush toilet. A month after the bathroom was completed I took out that expensive toilet because it was not doing the job and I put the old one back in.
...Rich
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Richard L,
Yes, it is an over simplification, as is saying "the only real difference is one is a moral issue and the other is a consumer issue". I might agree that the "main difference" is what you state. But the only "real difference"...well, I guess that all depends on what you mean by "real". Maybe you mean "arguably the most meaningful difference", and if you replaced "real" with that, then, we're cool.
Again, I don't disagree with the guy in the video in his general position. I just find the logical comparison an insult to my intelligence. It over simplifies, as you said and it puts a litmus test on choice, and to me, that is a naive way to think of things.
It would be like asking:
Q1: Do you agree with a woman's right to choose and abortion?
A: Yes, I do.
Q2: Oh, so since you are pro-choice I suppose you also think it is okay to allow people to choose their own drinking age, correct?
I find that example above to use the same flawed logic and naive view on choice. Some things require limits, regulations and reduction in choices, others do not.
That's all I was trying to say.
TJR
Yes, it is an over simplification, as is saying "the only real difference is one is a moral issue and the other is a consumer issue". I might agree that the "main difference" is what you state. But the only "real difference"...well, I guess that all depends on what you mean by "real". Maybe you mean "arguably the most meaningful difference", and if you replaced "real" with that, then, we're cool.
Again, I don't disagree with the guy in the video in his general position. I just find the logical comparison an insult to my intelligence. It over simplifies, as you said and it puts a litmus test on choice, and to me, that is a naive way to think of things.
It would be like asking:
Q1: Do you agree with a woman's right to choose and abortion?
A: Yes, I do.
Q2: Oh, so since you are pro-choice I suppose you also think it is okay to allow people to choose their own drinking age, correct?
I find that example above to use the same flawed logic and naive view on choice. Some things require limits, regulations and reduction in choices, others do not.
That's all I was trying to say.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
TJR,
There in lies the flaw in your logic. He did not ask if she was Pro-Abortion or Pro-Life. He only asked if she was Pro-Choice...She jumped to that conclusion.
I agree that he probably tricked her knowing she would assume he meant Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion. That may not be your favorite form of logic, but lawyers and politicians do it all the time when they want to contradict someone elses logic.
I don't think the logic is flawed because she said she was Pro-choice, and his whole point is that the consumers want to be able to make their own decisions on what products they think are best for them, just as she wants to choose if abortion is right for her. They may seem to be vastly different choices but that was not the point.
I personally would not want anyone in my family to have an abortion, but I defend the womans right to have one based on her circumstances. That's something that only her and her doctor should have a say so in....Not the government, and certainly not the politicians.
But the question about Pro-Choice in the video was not directed exclusively at abortion. It only was used to dramaticly illustrate how some people in government are taking away the choices of others because they think it's better not to give others their choice, just as long as they have their freedom of choice. Not so much different than Al Gore's hypocritical statements about CO2 and global warming, when his house used 6-10 time more energy than the average American home. He basicly said we need to cut back our energy usage, but he could use all he wanted.
As for the over-simplification...Sometimes people don't understand the impact unless you simplify the comparison. Because the Pro-choice question was an over-simplification, it never the less was very valid and got directly to the point.
...Rich
There in lies the flaw in your logic. He did not ask if she was Pro-Abortion or Pro-Life. He only asked if she was Pro-Choice...She jumped to that conclusion.
I agree that he probably tricked her knowing she would assume he meant Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion. That may not be your favorite form of logic, but lawyers and politicians do it all the time when they want to contradict someone elses logic.
I don't think the logic is flawed because she said she was Pro-choice, and his whole point is that the consumers want to be able to make their own decisions on what products they think are best for them, just as she wants to choose if abortion is right for her. They may seem to be vastly different choices but that was not the point.
I personally would not want anyone in my family to have an abortion, but I defend the womans right to have one based on her circumstances. That's something that only her and her doctor should have a say so in....Not the government, and certainly not the politicians.
But the question about Pro-Choice in the video was not directed exclusively at abortion. It only was used to dramaticly illustrate how some people in government are taking away the choices of others because they think it's better not to give others their choice, just as long as they have their freedom of choice. Not so much different than Al Gore's hypocritical statements about CO2 and global warming, when his house used 6-10 time more energy than the average American home. He basicly said we need to cut back our energy usage, but he could use all he wanted.
As for the over-simplification...Sometimes people don't understand the impact unless you simplify the comparison. Because the Pro-choice question was an over-simplification, it never the less was very valid and got directly to the point.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
RichardL,
I don't see that as a trick.
My point is that it is quite acceptable for people to be pro-choice for certain things, and pro-regulation (aka limited choice) for others. Just like someone can be conservative on some things, and liberal on others.
Only a farking idiot is polar and steadfast in their thinking and ideology, using the same way of thinking for all matters under the sun.
Therefore, the flaw is in trying to "word trap" someone by saying:
"Aha! Soyou are all for giving people choices in some areas but not others!"
.... well, to that I say:
"DUH! Who isn't?"
I agree it is a dramatic way to make the point and start a discussion. But still, the speaker lost a lot of credit with me by using what I feel is a "cheap stunt", one which when seen by many creates some chest beating.
TJR
I don't see that as a trick.
My point is that it is quite acceptable for people to be pro-choice for certain things, and pro-regulation (aka limited choice) for others. Just like someone can be conservative on some things, and liberal on others.
Only a farking idiot is polar and steadfast in their thinking and ideology, using the same way of thinking for all matters under the sun.
Therefore, the flaw is in trying to "word trap" someone by saying:
"Aha! Soyou are all for giving people choices in some areas but not others!"
.... well, to that I say:
"DUH! Who isn't?"
I agree it is a dramatic way to make the point and start a discussion. But still, the speaker lost a lot of credit with me by using what I feel is a "cheap stunt", one which when seen by many creates some chest beating.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
I pray he can separate himself from his father and make a name of his own and be productive advocate and true public servant for this country.
This is an intelligent and well intentioned American. Please pay attention people; get to know this man.
This is an intelligent and well intentioned American. Please pay attention people; get to know this man.
TJR,
Is it a Trap or a Trick?....Kind of the same thing in my opinion...But I won't argue the point. I agree that most people have different opinions on different issues. I also think that banning incandescent bulbs, and mandating 1.5 gallon per flush toilets is small potatoes, but clearly illustrates how Big government is restricting our choices over some very mundane areas. The video pointed out the stupidity of all of the restrictions on consumer's freedom of choice.
I think we both agree that the man made good points and a strong argument...IMO his opening question regarding Pro-Choice pulled the rug out from under the woman and she was just dangling and never made a coherent response.
...Rich
Is it a Trap or a Trick?....Kind of the same thing in my opinion...But I won't argue the point. I agree that most people have different opinions on different issues. I also think that banning incandescent bulbs, and mandating 1.5 gallon per flush toilets is small potatoes, but clearly illustrates how Big government is restricting our choices over some very mundane areas. The video pointed out the stupidity of all of the restrictions on consumer's freedom of choice.
I think we both agree that the man made good points and a strong argument...IMO his opening question regarding Pro-Choice pulled the rug out from under the woman and she was just dangling and never made a coherent response.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
RichardL,
Yeah, trap, trick, guess they are about the same thing.
Yeah, trap, trick, guess they are about the same thing.
