She's making Buck-Cake!

[Lulujayne]

Honor wrote -
Not for nothin', but c'mon... If a 10% increase in the price of something renders that price "ridiculously expensive", let's face it... It was pretty much ridiculously expensive to begin with.

Kind of my point really - we had a hard enough time justifying managements insitence on the $20 entrance fee as it was - when it got to 30, well, they laughed in our face, that's alot of pennies for folk to fork out for no garantee of seeing anything they may like or (given the shitty times unfortunately) good tempered girls - after all, those were really bad days, some of us sat there 12-18 hours straight for clients to come in.

The lovely Honor wrote -
Oh, and I don't at all mind starting a fight to say those types of "business" should absolutely be legalized and regulated.

Oh believe me dearest Honor, it wouldn't be a fight in anyway whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned - I salivate about the idea about the sex industry becoming legalized...

We will finally tax illegal industries.

Fuck that. If I even knew how to express just a little bit to you of what I've seen people do to girls that I've worked with. What you're talking about in a throw away comment smacks of punishment. Leagalizing the sex-industry will save lives period.

Thanks Honor - There should be more of you

(Besides, who wants to get into an argument with a drug dealer an have him/her turn around and say, "shuddup, I pay my taxes like anyone else!!" [wink])

[Swordsman3003]

Um, while I go think a bit, I just have one thing to say, Honor.

You say that the elimination of the death tax would be unfair because there would still be a gift tax. No, all taxes of such a nature would be eliminated.

The fairtax is not a VAT:

VAT. A consumption tax which is levied at each stage of production based on the value added to the product at that stage.

First of all, this in not every stage in the production line. This is one time at the retail level. Get it straight: You see exactly how much you are paying the government. Second, this tax is not based on the 'value' added to the product. All goods and services are taxed at the same rate regardless of their value. Got that? ITS NOT A FREAKING VAT!!!

Okay, yes, the republican blockheads are cheifly responsible for this bill. But hey, even a broken clock tells the correct time twice per day.

If you think a Democrat or any other politician opposes this bill because of the terrible retribution it will have on our economy, you are deluding yourself. So far, politicians who oppose the fairtax have done one thing: Decieve voters. They insist that it is a 'new' tax without mentioning the elimination of all old ones, that it will be a 30% rate (this number is created by skewing numbers, if you care to see I can show how). They are trying to win votes by showing how their opponent wants to tax the shit out of people. Quite the opposite it true.

Look, the way things are set up now it basically allows the govenment to alter taxes on nearly a weekly basis in order to appease lobbyists and buy votes. What is so great to them is its so freaking complicated that nobody knows what the hell they are doing with out money.

And why all this cringing at how this system will allow the rich to get away with less taxes? The way things are now, they can shelter and launder their money all kinds of legal ways and pay FAR less taxes than they should and would under the fairtax. There is no way around it.

What I think everyone needs to understand is that this is NOT a redistrubution of income or something like that. The government will collect the SAME amount of revenue, its just that we will eliminate all the wasted billions of dollars and man hours spent merely complying with our current tax code.

Don't even get me started on how fucked up the IRS is.

[Honor]

Um, while I go think a bit, I just have one thing to say, Honor.

Actually, that was a lot more things than one, hon... But I'm glad of that

You say that the elimination of the death tax would be unfair because there would still be a gift tax. No, all taxes of such a nature would be eliminated.

No... I didn't say anything like that. I said that you were too smart to be sucked into using innaccurate and inflamatory language like "death tax", and that, under the current system, Estate tax is extremely fair, and I used the existence of gift tax as an illustration of that fact. But, since you mention it, the exclusion of estate and gift taxes does point up another dangerous flaw to the "fair tax" system.

The fairtax is not a VAT:

VAT. A consumption tax which is levied at each stage of production based on the value added to the product at that stage.

First of all, this in not every stage in the production line. This is one time at the retail level.... You see exactly how much you are paying the government. Second, this tax is not based on the 'value' added to the product. All goods and services are taxed at the same rate regardless of their value.

All right... I see the distinction you're making now. Unfortunately, all this does (besides causing me to concede the distinction) is boldly illustrate more of the flaws in the plan. It should be more like a value added tax if it dreams of having any hope of working properly. And while we're on that paragraph:

Get it straight: blah blah blah. Got that? ITS NOT A FREAKING VAT!!!

Dude... Do you need an asperin? Or maybe a nap? Calm the fuck down.

Okay, yes, the republican blockheads are cheifly responsible for this bill. But hey, even a broken clock tells the correct time twice per day.

Exactly the point I was making in saying I still considered it worth further study. BTW, I've checked the whole co-sponsors list now. Not a democrat or independant on it.

If you think a Democrat or any other politician opposes this bill because of the terrible retribution it will have on our economy, you are deluding yourself.

"Terrible retribution"? No... That's not what I think. If this plan would fund our government, distribute the tax burden more fairly by reducing tax burden on the poor and increasing tax burden on the rich, and fix the holes in the corporate income tax system, you'd have to beat Democrats off of it with a big fucking stick. Democrats would line up around the grand lawn to sign a bill like that. So, currently, I'm guessing that most of the politicians opposed to this plan are opposed because the plan has huge gaping flaws in it.

So far, politicians who oppose the fairtax have done one thing: Decieve voters. They insist that it is a 'new' tax without mentioning the elimination of all old ones, that it will be a 30% rate (this number is created by skewing numbers, if you care to see I can show how). They are trying to win votes by showing how their opponent wants to tax the shit out of people. Quite the opposite it true.

I haven't found any of these yet. I've seen arguments against it's political viability, against it's loopholes, against other factors, but none like you describe. Can you give examples? If you can show me democratic (or other) politicians lying about this plan, I'll report them to Annenberg myself. I hate it when politicians (or anyone else, really) lies in a public forum (or elsewhere, outside "Yes... That's a beautiful baby!" ...but especially in a public political forum.)

Look, the way things are set up now it basically allows the govenment to alter taxes on nearly a weekly basis in order to appease lobbyists and buy votes.

Bit of an exageration, don't you think? Tax code is as difficult to make significant changes to as any other code.

What is so great to them is its so freaking complicated that nobody knows what the hell they are doing with out money.

With very few exceptions, government spending is a matter of public record. Try the OMB as a starting point.

And why all this cringing at how this system will allow the rich to get away with less taxes? The way things are now, they can shelter and launder their money all kinds of legal ways and pay FAR less taxes than they should and would under the fairtax. There is no way around it.

The problem is, this proposal appears at first blush to make that problem better, but at second glance, it makes it worse. Gone are income taxes. Gone are capital gains taxes. Gone are estate and gift taxes. All that's taxed is what they actually spend on real goods (plus maybe services and real estate... I haven't read that far into it yet. Have you?).

So one of this plan's problems is, the difference between rich and poor doesn't lie in wealth spent... It lies in wealth retained. Wealth earned and invested. This is where fairtax becomes distinctly unfair... By making sure that Joe CEO will never pay taxes on his salary, bonuses, per diems, dividends, or investments, and by guranteeing that his kids little Johnny and Jenny CEO-lette will never have to pay any kind of taxes on their inheritance, we make sure that the dynastic wealth of the rich remains unharmed and more and more people join the class of people who will never have to work at all.

And yes, there are ways around it. But the republican party exists for the primary purpose of ensuring that we never institute them into law.

What I think everyone needs to understand is that this is NOT a redistrubution of income or something like that.

Dude... Of course it is. You're talking about sending checks out to something like 30% of the country every freekin' month based on how much we expect them to spend on taxable goods. Any redistribution of tax burden is, in effect, a redistribution of income.

The government will collect the SAME amount of revenue, its just that we will eliminate all the wasted billions of dollars and man hours spent merely complying with our current tax code.

But all those people needn't worry about losing their jobs... We'll hire all of them, and everyone all of them knows to man and manage the huge lumbering beauracracy that will be required to operate this "pre-bate" system.

I don't know man... I see an awful lot of problems with this one.

[Honor]

Honor wrote -
Not for nothin', but c'mon... If a 10% increase in the price of something renders that price "ridiculously expensive", let's face it... It was pretty much ridiculously expensive to begin with.

Kind of my point really - we had a hard enough time justifying managements insitence on the $20 entrance fee as it was - when it got to 30, well, they laughed in our face...

Ah... I see. But then, that's not a 10% increase so much as it's a 50% increase. Sounds like management was compensating quite a bit more than the tax required of them... Which leads right back to the evil, parasitic "pimp" mentality of that sort of person.

This country, as a whole, lacks a lot of basic economic knowledge, to our detriment.

That it does, brother. And foresight. It's amazed me even since adolescence that the UAW jackasses who felt they deserved $30 an hour (back then) for putting tail-lights on a chevy couldn't see that they were making my soda-pop cost more, and the soda manufacturers couldn't see that them demanding a ridiculous raise would make our cars more expensive.

...But I wonder if the loss of that part of income would be offset by the corresponding improvement in our trade balance...

Um... I don't think so. Not much, anyway. I keep working it through the old circular flow model, and I can't find a way shipping a higher percentage of cash overseas as profits does much to make the trade deficit better, unless they spend a significant percentage of that increase on goods imported from American businesses? But yeah... It's worth hoping for

[Lowky]

Personally I think most of the "fun" illegal things should be legalized.

Legalize all of the sex industry, regulation including regular health checks etc. is good both for the safety of the professionals involved as well as their customers, who then are less likely to take disease back to a partner etc.

Drugs, legalize all of them. Every last stinking one. The main purpose or advantage to this is people won't need guns to get high. You will take away the black market, prices will come down and regulate. With legalization comes standardization. Less strychnine in the LSD; standardized percentages of the drug, so people are less likely to overdose; etc.
As the U.S. found with prohibition--It doesn't work. People have been getting high since before recorded history, they will continue to get high long past our ability to record our present. You will also see less people starting to experiment with drugs, as the rebellion will be gone.

once things are legalized the so called sin taxes can be applied like they are currently to alcohol and tobacco. This tax income can be used to fund regulation costs for the sex industry as well as fund rehab/education programs for people with problems with drugs.


The United States has way too many hang ups when it comes to drugs, alcohol and sex. Look at most of the rest of the world, despite what a "legal" drinking age might be, if your old enough to walk up and ask for it, your old enough to drink it. Whereas the United States has made alcohol all about rebellion and a rite of passage. Other parts of the world prostitution is legalized and regulated, where as the United States (at least the current administration) would like to pretend that nobody has sex. I am sure if it were up to them, sex education would amount to the stork brings the baby, and all the parents have to do is ask (0nce they are legally married of course).

[Honor]

Drugs, legalize all of them. Every last stinking one. The main purpose or advantage to this is people won't need guns to get high.

The only problem I have with any of this is that certain drugs are addictive enough that they build up a perceived / psychological need that outweighs life's simpler pleasures like sleeping, sex, & food... So work hasn't got a chance. If crystal meth or crack cocaine were available in drugstores, you'd still have people engaging in criminal activity to get cash for them, or simply stealing them, since presumably Drugstores are safer to rob than drug dealers.

I think perhaps the best way to fight those kinds of drugs would be to covertly subsidize "entertainment" that portrayed people who used them as galactically stupid, impotent, unclean, diseased, and/or ugly. Wayne & Garth, Beavis & Butthead... Wayyy too attractive for this plan. Movies or shows would have to show a progression from acceptable to unacceptable... And of the above qualities, sadly, threats of ugliness and impotence would probably prove to be the most successful deterrants.

I mean, hell... A significant percentage of teenagers actually believe in spit babies... It's not likly they'd figure out the manipulation behind my plan.

[Squidflakes]

Drugs, legalize all of them.

Am much as I HATE and LOATHE drugs with an all-consuming passion, I am in agreement with this plan.

I don't believe for a second though that it will save any lives. Just like alcohol, there will be those idiots who overindulge, drive, opperate machinery, try to parent children, ect. For those people, I suggest the legal punishment be doubled, trippled, or all misdemenors become felonies when you're high on Joe CrackRock.

[Cuteswan]

Drugs, legalize all of them. Every last stinking one.

Some of them are just too powerful, IMO, to be used unsupervised. Of course, it's not like folks with enough money couldn't find a clinic somewhere in the world that would let them check in and use them. Also, if the government regulated the stuff, then purity, dosage, etc. would be consistent and a bit less likely to cause accidental overdoses or problems from the impurities.

However, if we start legalizing more drugs, then I'd like a mandatory death penalty for vehicular homicide, or perhaps any situation where a person's alcohol or drug use was the major factor in the unjustified death of another. The uncensored televised executions should be so hideously painful, torturous and violent that 4chan would make a new board just for the fan art.

[Schol-R-LEA;2]

Even though I do not agree with it, I believe that Larry Niven's position on this would be worth mentioning here: that people who intentionally intoxicate themselves (or refuse to take anti-psychotic drugs for known and treatable mental disorders) are responsible for their actions while intoxicated on the principle of negligence. The argument is that they were aware of the risks from getting into an altered state, but chose to do so anyway. I'm not so sure that this argument holds water - withdrawal from some drugs can be at least as dangerous a mental state as the intoxicated state itself (or in the case of relatively non-psychoactive drugs such as tobacco or methadone, considerably more so) - but it does have the advantage of decriminalizing the act of taking drugs while still holding addicts responsible for the results of taking them.

Of course, his position on addiction in general is 'think of it as evolution in action'; i.e., that junkies and alcoholics should just be allowed to quietly OD or drink themselves to death, and take the supposed inclination towards their addiction out of the gene pool. I doubt that most people would consider this an acceptable solution, even if the genetics weren't so ridiculous (even if these problems were entirely genetic - which they demonstrably are not - they would have to be either recessive or relatively weak, or else they would have vanished long ago). On the one hand, it ignores the possibility of recovery and rehabilitation; on the other hand, drug problems very often harm the loved ones of the addict, even if they never take any violent or reckless actions while intoxicated.

As for the previous post... I'll admit that I flew off the handle there. It's simply that a lot of things seem to get polarized just for the sake of partisanship; I've often seen two sides come up with virtually identical positions while insisting that they are diametrically opposed. This is not a new thing, admittedly; it is precisely the sort of tempest-in-a-teapot which Swift satirized with the war between Lilliput and Blefuscu over which end of the egg to crack.

I still say that the two major parties in the US are not nearly so different as most people think - it only seems so because the range of mainstream politics has constricted dramatically in the past thirty years. Both sides hold essentially the same fundamental views on economics, prohibition, international affairs, etc. They may call themselves Conservative and Liberal, but the fact is that neither side is either (assuming one could come up with a sensible definition for either of those terms in the first place beyond 'neophobia' and neophilia' - the former characteristic being the most common on both sides). Ironically, the current 'conservatives' are closer to the historical 'liberal' positions in many ways, especially regarding foreign affairs: the so-called 'neo-conservatives' are essentially a rehash of Truman-era internationalism, right down to it's idealistic rhetoric of being the global policeman, while the 'liberal' pacifism is closer to traditional American isolationism than anything. Neither are what I consider a sensible position, in any case, but curent US political thought doesn't seem to have room for any views except those.

[Honor]

Even though I do not agree with it...

Interesting. Just curious, but why not?

I can't find anything in all that worth disagreeing with, really... With the caveat that I mentioned above... That, once taken to any substantial degree, some drugs pretty much simply take you out of the reality market.

If we educate properly on drugs in the first place, why not hold people properly responsible for what they do while taking them? I particularly like the idea of adding the refusal to take anti-psychotics to the list.

Of course the biggest danger in that latter case is essentially the same problem as requiring suitability tests prior to parenting or issue literacy tests prior to voting. Who decides on the test? Some people want me to take anti-depressants just because I occasionally consider blowing my brains out... I'm afraid my depression is there for a good reason - life is depressing - and I fear I'd lose valuable insight by drowning out that reality with happy drugs. In a culture that's so paternal that I can be fined or even jailed for not wearing a motorcycle helmet or seat belts, or "endangering myself" in other ways that are harmless to others, how long do you think it'd take someone to add anti-depressants to the list, adding grevious depth to the "punishments" for any "crime" I commit while not taking them? How long until new crimes are added?

As to addiction... Two things are worth mentioning. First, there should always be a distinction made, between "normal" addiction and the "addictive personality" if you will.

Normal addiction is a matter of chemistry. Everyone, without notable exception, who takes this drug for that amount of time will become physically or psychologically addicted. It's effectively an 'injury', so recovery and rehabilitation are simultaneous, and - while difficult - both are entirely possible.

The "addictive personality" is absolutely at least partially a matter of genetics. These are the people who seek out these... adventures in some cases, escapes in others. The only rehabilitation possible is to train the person to fight their own nature. Recovery is simply not possible. Despite all the idiotic things wrong with 12-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous, they got that bit right... There's no such living thing as a "recovered" alcoholic, only a "recovering" one.

The second thing worth mentioning, the idea that it's "ridiculous" for this to be genetic, without intending to be harsh, only shows an insufficient understanding of genetic behaviours. Your supposition that if it were genetic, it'd be gone by now is demonstrably incorrect. The only way they would have weeded themselves out of the gene pool "long ago" would be if those that carried those genes would invariably (or nearly invariably) die before they have a chance to reproduce... Well there're a few problems.

First, the capability to easily kill yourself with this trait, especially early in life, is pretty new to human culture. Booze won't do it - at least not without cars. You need something like crack or meth.

Second, particularly in sexually repressed environments like we have now (and have had for the past several hundred years) those who carry this gene and use it are very often arguably more likely to reproduce early and often than those who don't.

Third, even if they only rarely, or even -almost never- reproduced, it may be a common enough occurance to be deeply threaded into the genetic structure anyway... Homosexuality, anyone?

In any case, I'm not sure weeding out this "weakness" would be good for humanity. Very often, something that looks like a flaw on an individual level is beneficial or even essential on a species level.

As an example of what I'm talking about, what if we were able to "evolve" out the risk taking behaviour that makes people play extreme sports, jump out of airplanes, etc... We would save 'persons', but 'people' would pay a terribly high price over the long run. We rely on that sense of adventure and curiosity to take us further than mere survival requires... Without that genitic 'flaw' we'd still be foraging for a substenance level existence.

Well, people who are prone to addiction are very often (though certainly not always) highly intelligent, highly creative, multi-talented... They dream more, and they dream more deeply. They see the world differently. While adventurers explore physically because they are bored, or addicted to adrenaline, these people explore intellectually because they're not satisfied with things the way they are.

Without people like this we'd certainly be far less than we are, as a species.

So, if we make things like crack cocain or crystal meth or opium easily and legally available without putting a great deal of effort into educating about how completely and utterly these things will destroy a young person, we will, without question, lose some of the best and brghtest creative minds of future generations before they even have a chance to blossom.

[Kenryoku]

Hahah ... to think I joined this forum to share animated GIFs, talk about pork chops, post Starwind's pictures, and to make comments about Ghastly's comic along side the rest of the forumites. Dig into this thing and you have wonderfully educated discussions on both sides of every arguement (and being born from a "buck cake" image to boot).

I would like to take this moment and thank everyone for a wonderful read about US taxes and immigration ! Im now convinced more than ever I dont know a drop-of-warm-water-in-a-hot-skillet's amount about politics and economics. I was in that party who thought the flat tax collected at POS was a very good step towards a new method of taxation. One good read here proves that idea bound straight for that unforgiving wall of failure. As I read it was a sharp reminder to myself that any system put into place that requires even the slightest amount of trust in anyone to not take every advantage they can possibly scrounge up will not work, or if it does work it will be broke and "not fair" to someone.

And on the discussion of legalization of drugs I make the arguement similar to above - any system put into place that assumes the "willpower" of those under it will fail. Like the idea of educating people about the consequences of taking drugs keeping them from doing so requires far too much trust in people's willpower. Especially in these times when movies, music, and print already celebrate the illegal culture of drugs openly. Legalize them and people arent going to listen to, "They are legal but here is what they will do to you" they are going to instead be listening to the voice of temptation convincing themselves to take part (especially the easily manipulated and mentally vulnerable). "I will try it just once." "Well my friends are doing it and I wanted to fit in." "It is the new in thing." Et cetera et cetera. It might be a shameful lack of opinion in mankind's ability to resist temptation on the path to self-preservation on my behalf admitedly ... but I apologize; I dont think legalization and education on drugs would be an answer.

Legalization of the "sex industry" ... well ... I really cant say I have a good or bad opinion on this from my standpoint. I would never be able to take part in a "purchase sex" system cause there is something on the backside of my mind that catagorizes the idea to paying a woman for sex with insulting her as being a whore that has to sell herself to make it through life. Just me, but that is what would always be in the forethought of my mind trying to take part in something like that and because of that nagging thought process I cannot make a clear, educated opinion as a whole (not to mention the inevitable, embarrasing lack of performance on the sheets cause of feeling out of place like that ... but that is another subject entirely).

[Honor]

I would never be able to take part in a "purchase sex" system cause there is something on the backside of my mind that catagorizes the idea to paying a woman for sex with insulting her as being a whore that has to sell herself to make it through life.

We're almost all of us whores who have to sell ourselves to make it through life. Some of us feel sorry for people who have to suck dicks for cash. I feel sorry for people who have to wash dishes and sweep floors and scrub toilets for cash. Particularly when one of those people is me. And when I have to follow idiot orders from semi-sentient sub-managers, it's even worse.

I understand what you're saying, of course, and I think lots of people feel the same way you feel, and I think it's an inherantly good, kind, and noble way to feel...

But I think it's also an artificial artifact of our sex-repressed, patriarchal society. Even today it's hard for a man to imagine feeling "insulted" or objectified if someone payed him to have sex with her... But it's easy for them to imagine a woman feeling that way. Even when it's not a concious thing, this is born of an ancient societal attitude of women being less than men, sexually. Sex is something men "get lucky" to have, but something women have to "give up".

I like the way "Registered Companions" are handled in the Firefly (Serenity) universe... And that's obviously not foreign to our history... There are many times and places in human history where sex workers & "companions" were perfectly accepted, highly skilled, highly valued professionals.

I hate to sound like a broken record to some of the people who've put up with me longer, but if we scan history, this open status of sex workers usually falls from favor somewhat when the ownerwhip of women (literally or figuratively) becomes a major concern, but rarely dissapears completely until some religion begins to villify sex in order to better control people.

And BTW... Intelligent, balanced, well written post. Welcome to our prevy little family.

And there's another interesting subject... Ever notice how disproportionately often perverts are intelligent, creative, curious people?

[Indigo Violent]

Ever notice how disproportionately often perverts are intelligent, creative, curious people?

Well, it makes sense if you think about it. If you're generally intelligent, creative and curious, you're going to start to apply it to pretty much every aspect of your life...

[Toawa]

(or refuse to take anti-psychotic drugs for known and treatable mental disorders)

I'd have to say, that line of reasoning makes me very nervous. Unfortunately, the definitions of mental disorders, let alone the treatability of such, is very open to interpretation. With this meme in society, it would be easy to eliminate one's political enemies by simply convincing people that they're crazy, and forcing them onto meds designed only to quiet them down. (Not that that isn't possible now, but it's a bit more difficult. At least I hope it is.)

Given public perceptions of mental disorders as they stand now, I think it might be easy enough to hide a large conspiracy by simply tossing in a bit of surrealism. Make anyone describing it sound like they're scizophrenic. Bonus points if they start believing it themselves, because to deny it is symptomatic of the disease. (At least to the public, and in this case, that's all that really matters.)

Not to mention the possibility that such a meme would lead to forced anti-depressants, forced anti-anxiety meds, forced... (I hate it when I start singing CCHR's tune, because I am diametrically opposed to their methods, but...)

First they came for the scizophrenics...
Then they came for the bipolars...
Then they came for the depressed, and the anxious, and the spectrum, and...

[Honor]

First they came for the scizophrenics...

...And I didn't complain, because I was not a schizo.

Then they came for the bipolars...

...And I didn't complain, because I wasn't bipolar.

Then they came for the depressed, and the anxious, and the spectrum, and...

And I didn't complain... Because I was none of those things.

By the time they came for me, there was nobody left awake to complain.

Wasn't the original version of that quote about people in n... na... you know. That one time, in Germany?

[Schol-R-LEA;2]

The second thing worth mentioning, the idea that it's "ridiculous" for this to be genetic, without intending to be harsh, only shows an insufficient understanding of genetic behaviours. Your supposition that if it were genetic, it'd be gone by now is demonstrably incorrect. The only way they would have weeded themselves out of the gene pool "long ago" would be if those that carried those genes would invariably (or nearly invariably) die before they have a chance to reproduce... Well there're a few problems.

Perhaps I should have been clearer: my objection was to the ideas that a) addiction, and 'addictive personalities', is entirely genetic in origin, and b) that the 'addiction gene' would vanish if addicts were allowed to 'die off'. I am well aware that there may be genetic predispositions to addiction, but Niven's assumption is that all addicts have said predisposition, and that the genes only exist in those who are actively addicted to a self-destructive level. He furthermore assumed that most addicts, if given open access to their drug of choice, would kill themselves with it before they have had a chance to pass those genes on. That was what I considered 'ridiculous', for more or less the same reasons you state yourself. His argument is essentially circular, for if this were true, and the traits were dominant, then they would not have been retained in the past; since they clearly were retained, there is no reason to think they won't be in the future.

In other words, you are arguing against his assertions, not mine, and with essentially the same arguments I was using.

Oh, and as for homosexuality, I generally fall into the social constructionist camp, though I do consider both genetics and prenatal hormonal balance (which can be influenced by a number of factors) to be predisposing aspects for some individuals; just because attraction is involuntary does not mean it is physically inherent. IMHO, a theory of genetic causation for sexuality would need to explain attraction in general, not just certain forms of attraction; sexual orientation is only one aspect of attraction, and the attention given it is mostly because of this society's negative view of it, not because it is intrinsically more important than other factors.

[HentaiCat]

Ever notice how disproportionately often perverts are intelligent, creative, curious people?

Well, it makes sense if you think about it. If you're generally intelligent, creative and curious, you're going to start to apply it to pretty much every aspect of your life...

Ya know, the more I think of it, I

[Swordsman3003]

I am having a hard time understanding some of your arguments, Honor. Are you trying to say that the FairTax unduly taxes the poor?

Also, there are many reasons why many on capital hill would oppose the fairtax plan, the cheif of which I have already mentioned is the fact that they manipulate taxation in order to earn votes.

If you are so concerned about the poor, you should be adamant in support of the FairTax. The way things are, corporations move their headquaters to other countries because of the ridiculus burden our system has on fair and legal business. Everyone treats corporations worse than Satan, but who employs nearly all of the workforce?

The rich know all kinds of ways to manipulate their money to avoid paying taxes. Churches are exempt completely!

[Honor]

In other words, you are arguing against his assertions, not mine, and with essentially the same arguments I was using.

Ah. Well. He deserves it. Circular logic, possibly for the sake of being argumentative doesn't surprise me from the small amount of experience I've had of him. I tend to like him, but he can be (and possibly because he can be such) a rascal...

Oh, and as for homosexuality, I generally fall into the social constructionist camp, though I do consider both genetics and prenatal hormonal balance (which can be influenced by a number of factors) to be predisposing aspects for some individuals; just because attraction is involuntary does not mean it is physically inherent. IMHO, a theory of genetic causation for sexuality would need to explain attraction in general, not just certain forms of attraction; sexual orientation is only one aspect of attraction, and the attention given it is mostly because of this society's negative view of it, not because it is intrinsically more important than other factors.

Hmmmmmmm... I think that puts us in a pretty high level of agreement.

I find "It's genetics." to be a fairly sloppy and over-used catch-all in common conversation for a lot of different and incompletely understood factors. Pre-natal hormonal balance obviously has a great deal to do with sex, gender, and gender expression, and could effect sexuality as well... But just as obviously, outside of the possibility of hormones kicking on or off genetic switches, it couldn't alter the genetic structure of the individual in question.

And what about "instinct" or non-learned behaviour? There's a lot of stuff that humans and other animals are simply born knowing, or knowing to do and how to do... Some of it can express almost immediately, and other bits seem to come later. The idea of passing "knowledge" or skills via genetics is really hard to swallow, but before there are nerves or a brain, if that information isn't hidden in the genes somewhere, where is it?

I think all the myriad situations we lump together as "homosexuality" come from a just as diverse set of causes. I think there are aspects of attraction that are obviously environmental, but I think it's just as obvious that other aspects are inborn.

So yes... I think some people who identify as homosexual are absolutely hard-wired that way... Meaning not that they are physically incapable of attraction to the opposite sex or gender, or someone of ambiguous sex or gender, but that the same sex or gender is where their instinctive drive will lead them.

I don't read your paragraph as asserting that it's all learned behavior, but the idea is worth refuting to complete my thought... If it were all learned, we wouldn't see it so much in less sentient animals. It's safe to say field mice don't go queer because of overbearing mothers, absent fathers, or out of a sense of rebellion.

I do however consider casual bisexuality to be the 'natural' state of human beings, and only uncommon due to social constraint and learned behaviour.

The dichotomous reality that continually tortures the sense of right and wrong of my soul's greater angels is this:

On the one hand, I believe - just short of saying "I know" - that it should be legally and socially OK for sex, gender, sexuality, and attraction to be fully and wholly a matter of consenting choice on a moment by moment basis. If a boy wants a pretty dress or a vagina or a male partner, it should be a question of "do you want to?" and not a question of "do you have to?" that gets him the freedom to do what he's asking for.

On the other hand, I have to begrudgingly agree that the laws to give him that freedom will come a lot sooner if the common voter believes he "has" to.

...and it hardly seems right to jump now from that topic to this... But:

I am having a hard time understanding some of your arguments, Honor. Are you trying to say that the FairTax unduly taxes the poor?

Not exactly. I'm saying that it unduly taxes the middle classes and insufficiently taxes the rich. Were it not for a "pre-bate" system that I think will end up at least as unwieldy and abused as the current system, it would certainly unduly tax the poor, though.

Also, there are many reasons why many on capital hill would oppose the fairtax plan, the cheif of which I have already mentioned is the fact that they manipulate taxation in order to earn votes.

No... Not really. Not much at all. They manipulate the budget to earn votes, but the tax code is fairly hard to change on a whim. It takes a great deal of the one thing in shortest supply in Washington... Consensus. The only administration to manage what you're talking about in recent history is the current one.

Don't get me wrong... The tax system does get a fairly substantial and regular working over, but it's not as simple as you're making it. Republicans win votes by making small cuts in taxes and spending money on big business. Democrats win votes by improving social services and taxing big business.

IOW, Democrats don't raise taxes because we're stupid... We do it because our society needs more and better social services... The kinds of things that, not coincidentally, win us votes... And the Republicans aren't going to let go of the wasteful portions of the budget that earn them votes. So everyone agrees the system is broken, and nobody agrees how or why, and the system only gets small, incremental changes that don't do enough to put either side over the top.

If you are so concerned about the poor, you should be adamant in support of the FairTax....

I'm an adamant supporter of a theory that bears a strong resemblance to "FairTax", but "FairTax" isn't it. The more I read about it, the more it looks like this plan was specifically designed to bear that intentionally strong surface resemblance to what is needed, but not only leave the advantages for the rich and big business, but actually increase those advantages manifold.

It's another product of the same Republican marketing strategy that brought us "Clear Skies" and "Death Tax" and "Pro Life" and "war on Terror". Give it a nice surface coat of paint, and slap the right sound-bite name on it, and people will gobble it up. How could anyone be against it...? It's so scrupulously fair that it's even called "Fair Tax"!!

In order for any tax system to be "fair" it's going to have to address earnings and capital gains and offshore banking and the inheritance of vast estates. It's going to have to address corporate profit and offshore investment and corporate spending. It's going to have to address a whole pile of things that this plan ignores, and it's going to have to actually be workable while it's at it... In which respect this plan also appears to have some serious flaws.

Hell, to be really fair, it should stop subsidizing having children. Children use tax resources... To be truely fair, people who have children should pay higher taxes, not lower... Try getting that passed in America.

The rich know all kinds of ways to manipulate their money to avoid paying taxes.

Too true. And this plan not only keeps them all in place, it adds a buch of easy new ones.

Churches are exempt completely!

Well, that's basically constitutional. Maybe they should pay taxes... But secular non-profit organizations are offered the same exemptions. And yes, there are undoubtably abuses in both groups, but in all I think both groups should keep those expemtions, with perhaps a tad more oversight. People who work for either type of organization, at least, do pay taxes on their income... Although religious leaders are far more adept at hiding "income" of this sort.

[Kenryoku]

Here let me take my first swing at multiple quote powah!!

We're almost all of us whores who have to sell ourselves to make it through life.

A fair comparison I would say. Of course I have never tried to justify or even contemplate my stance on the situation on simple fact I dont see me every being in the place where "sex for hire" is an open standard. I just do an empty "chalk it up to being raised a gentlement" and go on. 8)

Sex is something men "get lucky" to have, but something women have to "give up".

Im not an educated enough man to addrss the first of this paragraph (Im about history stupid given most subjects) but I can make a quick note on this sentance. A strange mix of optimistic and pessimistic for me, but I always though sex is something men "have to earn" to have. Optimistic cause it does have this noble ring to it (queue the knight on the white steed). Pessimistic on account a lot of men "earn" this with methods that they should have their genitalia removed with repeated application of a mallet for doing so.

And BTW... Intelligent, balanced, well written post. Welcome to our prevy little family.

I try. And thank you.

And there's another interesting subject... Ever notice how disproportionately often perverts are intelligent, creative, curious people?

Hmm. Never thought of it but there does seem to be a little evidence to this. But then again maybe we are just talking about these forums. I have seen some ... lets call them "lower grade perverts" ... that cannot manage thought process past a very limited library of three and four letter words, are about as creative as nuke dropped on the Louvre, and only curious cause they think they might have found something else they can make a quick buck or two off of (preferably at the pain and expense of another), no pun intended.