tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post289890959284820816..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: Coming Soon to A Road Near You*Brethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger167125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-69480213274479703722016-03-12T11:53:18.637-08:002016-03-12T11:53:18.637-08:00I do desire sex, and I don't have a choice reg...<i> I do desire sex, and I don't have a choice regarding the having the desire. I do, however, have a choice to decide to pursue that desire or not. </i><br /><br />You have ignored the central point: how much choice do you have to pursue that desire, or not?<br /><br />I'm nearing 61, and it is dead certain that I have far more choice in that regard than I did forty years ago. Moreover, it should be obvious that for some people, deciding not to pursue that desire is much harder than for others, despite paying very heavily for doing so.<br /><br />So, with regard to your father, it is impossible to say whether he was as free as you are to not drink, or even if he was engaging in self-justification. <br /><br />I have no real direct experience of chemical addiction, except for one of my brothers-in-law. I am certain he did not have anything like the ability I, and most people I know, to say, long before having too much, "that's enough."Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-46238332258538465532016-03-11T17:13:57.793-08:002016-03-11T17:13:57.793-08:00Hey Skipper wrote [with respect to addiction choic...Hey Skipper wrote [with respect to addiction choice]: "<i>What is your favorite color? Song? Food?</i>"<br /><br />There's a difference between having a desire and choosing to act on it. I don't actually have a favorite color, song, or food (they all depend on context and mood for me), so let's take a different example. I do desire sex, and I don't have a choice regarding the having the desire. I do, however, have a choice to decide to pursue that desire or not.<br /><br />So I reject your rejection of my premise. :-)Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-62966486974091382672016-03-08T19:43:27.178-08:002016-03-08T19:43:27.178-08:00Skipper, OMG - sociable ! Aren't there union ...Skipper, OMG - sociable ! Aren't there union rules protecting you guys from that? <br /><br />Addiction is complicated and I wouldn't compare it to a yen for chocolate or a compulsion to collect Hummel figurines. I haven't had any first hand experience with alcoholism or drug addiction, but from what I've read and heard about it, it's pretty darn difficult, if not impossible, to overcome without Herculean effort and is very easy to fall back into it.<br /><br />Taking the profit motive out of selling the stuff and letting adults make their own choices seems to me the best of a multitude of other bad choices. Those who break the law while under the influence suffer the consequences and are removed from society either to jail or other facility or institution.<br /><br />Ad campaigns like the hugely successful one against smoking would be very useful in making drinking and drugs not cool.<br /><br />What is missing is the will to do it.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-35717122991976171602016-03-08T18:51:49.219-08:002016-03-08T18:51:49.219-08:00Bret:
This deserved a response a long time ago. ...Bret:<br /><br /><a href="http://greatguys.blogspot.com/2016/02/coming-soon-to-road-near-you.html?showComment=1455744422510#c1111289836274783197" rel="nofollow">This</a> deserved a response a long time ago. (Mea culpa: I've been on the road, and almost continuously having to be — quelle horreur — sociable.<br /><br />I think there is an embedded problem that you don't acknowledge: free will. <br /><br />The argument about free will is nearly impossible because there is absolutely no telling free will from pre-ordained choice.<br /><br /><i>1. The addict chose to become an addict. </i><br /><br />What is your favorite color? Song? Food?<br /><br />Change them.<br /><br />Even though they are entirely trivial, you cannot (honestly, that is).<br /><br />There are a great many, perhaps most, things in my life I did not choose, and over which I have no real control. To me, women are overwhelmingly, without a glimmer of a chance of a notion of recovery, addictive. I promise you I had no choice in the matter. <br /><br />And, in service of that addiction, I have given over every dime I earn.<br /><br />I have an uncle who was, by any definition of the term, was addicted to religion. I'm pretty sure the truly religious would never agree they have a choice about their belief.<br /><br /><i>If this is true, the question then, is why do many people such as yourself believe that the addict is not making a rational choice?</i><br /><br />Since I reject your premise, then why should I believe your consequents follow?<br /><br />Regardless of that, almost all of them are situationally implausible. My uncle was addicted to his religion, which isn't illegal, nor (with caveats that defeat your consequents) immoral. You confine your notion of addiction to drugs, which blinds you to other addictions that don't involve drugs, and don't carry any intrinsic negative attitude from society. <br /><br />My brother-in-law traded a family, and a good career as a jet engine mechanic for demon rum.<br /><br />What kind of choice is that?Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-87361923196088553962016-03-08T17:40:24.171-08:002016-03-08T17:40:24.171-08:00[Clovis:] My main argument rests on the potential ...<i>[Clovis:] My main argument rests on the potential for future drugs (and a small subset of present ones) to be able to break through the 10% ceiling of "natural addictiveness". </i><br /><br />To the extent it is true, that is a compelling argument. But on current form — think of the number of addictive drugs (by which I mean mood altering substances) — that doesn't seem at all likely. After all, what are the odds that, given the plethora of drugs, that it is the same 10% getting addicted, unless addiction is a function of the addict, not the substance?<br /><br />Further, even if such a substance were to be found, wouldn't it make more sense to prohibit that one substance, and disregard the rest?<br /><br />BTW, I read that UN report you to which you linked. OK, not the whole thing, but starting at page 175.<br /><br />It was, as you said, interesting reading. I have many quibbles with it — why use countries as the unit of measure, when per capita is so much better? — but it is striking how much opium consumption varied over time and across countries.<br /><br />Still, it seems that my somewhat arbitrary notion that roughly 10% of the population will be harmfully addicted to something isn't entirely out to sea.<br /><br />Which again raises the question: how much effort should society put out to prevent that 10% from being addicted to something, when they will be addicted to nearly anything?Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-2509442053815145592016-03-07T14:43:02.452-08:002016-03-07T14:43:02.452-08:00Sorry, Skipper. You mention 4M further along and ...Sorry, Skipper. You mention 4M further along and I made the one unforgivable <i>faux pas</i> - I assumed. :-(<br /><br />Harry is, IMO, even among the countless academic progs with whom I lived for decades, <i>sui generis</i>.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-20938899390701436132016-03-07T13:06:34.737-08:002016-03-07T13:06:34.737-08:00What do you mean, extra zeroes?
The number of rid...What do you mean, extra zeroes?<br /><br />The number of ridiculous assertions from progs since 1867 is uncountable, and certainly at least four billion. Heck, Harry is responsible for several thousand all by himself.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-23710320239733079502016-03-07T12:41:21.903-08:002016-03-07T12:41:21.903-08:00Skipper, ya got some extra zeros up above. No dou...Skipper, ya got some extra zeros up above. No doubt a typo due to using the infernal i-pad keyboard. Otherwise, right on.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-83436286518725471182016-03-07T11:57:15.363-08:002016-03-07T11:57:15.363-08:00Harry, you will be surprised to learn that outside...Harry, you will be surprised to learn that outside Progworld, innumeracy is considered a public menace. And with some 4,000,000,000 ridiculous assertions since 1867, a serious one.<br /><br />Because you keep trotting out this figure, you must believe it means something. That brands you as innumerate, and analytically challenged.<br /><br />Let me help you out here. You have taken an ascertainable fact — 4M gunshot deaths in 116 years — and treated it as conclusive, without acknowledging the difference between gross and net.<br /><br />4M deaths can only stand as a useful fact if murder and suicide were completely unknown prior to the invention of firearms. Since that is manifestly ridiculous, then at least some of those 4M people were going to die prematurely anyway, with only the means at question.<br /><br />It gets worse. Some two thirds of premature deaths by firearms are suicides. Suicide varies widely by culture and gender; moreover, there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates. Unless, of course, <a href="http://dailyduck.blogspot.com/2013/02/agenda-journalism.html" rel="nofollow">agenda journalists</a> heroically ignore salient facts to get there.<br /><br />Because roughly two-thirds of that oft-abused 4M figure are suicides, and the evidence is conclusive that there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates, then 4M gross really amounts to, <i>at most</i>, 1.4M net. <br /><br />Yet, since most of your better historians agree that murder existed before guns, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html" rel="nofollow">that many, if not most, societies before guns had murder rates far higher than societies with guns</a>. <br /><br />Which means, for those progs at home who are analytically challenged, the correlation between guns and murder rates is negative. In other words, it is impossible to know not only how many of those 1.4M would have been killed anyway, it is even possible that fewer people died because of guns than would have been the case otherwise.<br /><br />Making matters worse for you, as it they weren't already bad enough, murder rates are far higher among African Americans than anyone else. You can explain that one of two ways: the racist way — African Americans are relatively incapable of safely owning guns; or, the guns-are-irrelevant way — that what the rest of society has done to African Americans over the last 400 years has so damaged them as a group that higher crime rates of all kinds are the result. (This is the close sibling to thinking wholly inadequate mental illness treatment is a reason to confiscate guns. But that's progressivism for you.)<br /><br />The abiding mystery is why you keep trotting out a number that is so transparently worthless. My theory is that, as a progressive, you are innumerate, and incapable of analytical thought. Compounding that, your anti-gun attitude is indistinguishable from any other religious zealotry.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-63279203466931426942016-03-04T15:08:25.526-08:002016-03-04T15:08:25.526-08:00Harry,
To be clear, are you implying they are fas...Harry,<br /><br />To be clear, are you implying they are fascists just because they have money to buy a condo?<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-17369229406936549702016-03-03T17:57:08.329-08:002016-03-03T17:57:08.329-08:00Harry, if you mean descamisados -- they must be qu...Harry, if you mean <i>descamisados</i> -- they must be quite old by now and perhaps have seen the error of their ways, turned their lives around, saved their money, invested wisely and are now able to live <i>la vida loca</i> in Miami.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-11202785001955242822016-03-03T17:36:22.690-08:002016-03-03T17:36:22.690-08:00Skipper, you will be surprised to learn that in ci...Skipper, you will be surprised to learn that in civilized countries, firearms control is considered a public health measure. And with something like 4,000,000 premature deaths since 1900, a serious one.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-40632065120293302752016-03-03T17:32:49.465-08:002016-03-03T17:32:49.465-08:00Not too many decamisados with cash dollars enough ...Not too many decamisados with cash dollars enough to buy a Miami condoHarry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-49138610388635015912016-02-29T05:19:30.444-08:002016-02-29T05:19:30.444-08:00Clovis, I believe Harry is referring to Pinochet a...Clovis, I believe Harry is referring to Pinochet as the main man fascist with Juan a mere foot soldier.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-5003013775773591522016-02-29T04:42:51.953-08:002016-02-29T04:42:51.953-08:00Harry,
I wonder, how do you know the Argentinian ...Harry,<br /><br />I wonder, how do you know the Argentinian is a fascist? <br /><br />He presented himself to you like, "Hola, soy Juan y soy un fascista"?Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-23740340117775764382016-02-28T19:51:01.206-08:002016-02-28T19:51:01.206-08:00Harry, wow, just wow.Harry, wow, just wow.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-2904554669961002452016-02-28T19:45:01.949-08:002016-02-28T19:45:01.949-08:00Your hero, erp
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/...Your hero, erp<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/world/americas/a-chilean-ex-soldier-guiltily-recalls-his-units-atrocities.html?hpw&rref=world&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-wellHarry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-16759510276590886302016-02-28T07:41:41.710-08:002016-02-28T07:41:41.710-08:00[harry:] Does it provide care to all? Yes
...
I...<i>[harry:] Does it provide care to all? Yes <br /><br />...</i><br /><br />Instead of being a troll, how about responding to <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nhs%20rationing" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br />Or <a href="http://greatguys.blogspot.com/2016/02/coming-soon-to-road-near-you.html?showComment=1456415500814#c5725037141315736317" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br />Or <a href="http://greatguys.blogspot.com/2016/02/coming-soon-to-road-near-you.html?showComment=1456239768572#c6360440209061174744" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br />Or <a href="http://greatguys.blogspot.com/2016/02/coming-soon-to-road-near-you.html?showComment=1456163542791#c179318138575270065" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br />Or <a href="http://greatguys.blogspot.com/2016/02/coming-soon-to-road-near-you.html?showComment=1456151379150#c6151111412952638723" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br />Or <a href="http://greatguys.blogspot.com/2016/02/coming-soon-to-road-near-you.html?showComment=1456071144507#c3522992047008194376" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br />Your choice.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-69981658517794514402016-02-27T14:22:59.391-08:002016-02-27T14:22:59.391-08:00Delusional?
Argentinian fascists aka lefties in s...Delusional?<br /><br />Argentinian fascists aka lefties in south Florida and American fascists here in Central Florida. Birds of a feather. <br /><br />Glad to know you're in on the bonanza Harry.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-20260826010894709512016-02-27T11:58:09.881-08:002016-02-27T11:58:09.881-08:00Rich lefties in a south Florida condo? You are del...Rich lefties in a south Florida condo? You are delusional<br /><br />(I am in the process of getting mucho bucks out of a south Florida condo, as it happens. The previous owner was far from a leftist, and the prospective new owners -- yes, cash dollars, please! -- are Argentinian fascists)Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-47059687506802878052016-02-27T05:25:46.109-08:002016-02-27T05:25:46.109-08:00Harry, define "care," as opposed to &quo...Harry, define "care," as opposed to "highest quality care." Cheaper than what? Your comment is quite timely. The free clinic in our county which heretofore was run on voluntary contributions and volunteers at every level is in the process of being taken over by the taxpayers without their knowledge and consent. Front page article this morning that a community center currently being used by a local church for a weekly food bank is being denied access to the site for a weekly free clinic in conjunction. Reason: Rich lefties in the high rise condos on the beach don't want any of the great unwashed within their panoramic views.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-75050547025290203612016-02-26T19:29:10.885-08:002016-02-26T19:29:10.885-08:00So socialized medicine is problematic, eh?
Does i...So socialized medicine is problematic, eh?<br /><br />Does it provide care to all? Yes<br /><br />Is it care of the highest quality? Yes<br /><br />Is it far cheaper than non-socialized medicine? Yes<br /><br />I don't see a problemHarry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-37551368002940023462016-02-25T09:29:04.340-08:002016-02-25T09:29:04.340-08:00Skipper,
---
a free policy on drugs is no more ha...Skipper,<br /><br />---<br />a free policy on drugs is no more hazardous in a large or growing population than a small or static one. <br />---<br />My main argument rests on the potential for future drugs (and a small subset of present ones) to be able to break through the 10% ceiling of "natural addictiveness".<br /><br />I believe any big pharma company can easily achieve so. But no new drug will expand its reach over addictics without something very important, which is social appeal. Kids partying and playing and doing their small talk at schools, colleges and their social forums is what makes the drug successful. Old people only talk about drugs to, well, display their boring arguments such as ourselves right now.<br /><br /><br />IOW, young people are better hosts for the parasite, and rate of infection depends on the availability of hosts.<br /><br /><br />---<br />As for antibiotics, I thought the evolving resistance dangers due to overconsumption were obvious enough.<br />---<br />It is, again, a collective X individual thing going on.<br /><br />I don't feel fine with the concept of only being able to look for a medicine for myself after consulting a doctor. Do you?<br /><br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-45299324127795124362016-02-25T08:06:28.904-08:002016-02-25T08:06:28.904-08:00[Clovis:] IOW, a free policy on drugs will natural...<i>[Clovis:] IOW, a free policy on drugs will naturally be less hazardous in such places. </i><br /><br />Sorry, I don't know why I didn't suss your point from the outset.<br /><br />However, as a statistical matter, I'm not sure you are right. Unless incidence is correlated to population, then more people = more addicts is merely a matter of arithmetic — a free policy on drugs is no more hazardous in a large or growing population than a small or static one. After all, growing populations have more non-addicts than shrinking ones, right?<br /><br /><i>Yeah, so that $2 booze will get to $2.6 - OMG, no alcoholic bum will ever surpass that mountain! </i><br /><br />No, more like booze that costs $18 elsewhere costs nearly $30 in Alaska.<br /><br /><i>Why to single out Marijuana? There are so many other controlled substances that, in mild use, are perfectly manageable. <br /><br />I am not sure I can agree with the controls they put even to antibiotics access. </i><br /><br />Because Marijuana is an intoxicating drug, and the issue at hand is whether prohibiting intoxicating drugs causes more damage than it prevents. <br /><br />As for antibiotics, I thought the evolving resistance dangers due to overconsumption were obvious enough.<br /><br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-30744443499004620332016-02-25T07:53:42.614-08:002016-02-25T07:53:42.614-08:00Before WHO released the study, it was commonly acc...<i>Before WHO released the study, it was commonly accepted that health care in countries with socialized medicine was problematic.'<br /><br />So it was, at Commentary. <b>The real world thought differently. </b></i><br /><br />You say a great many truly ignorant things, but this perhaps takes the cake. Besides the evidence I provided above about problems with socialized medicine, unlike you, I have first hand experience with it: <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nhs%20rationing" rel="nofollow">socialized medicine is, indeed problematic</a>.<br /><br /><br /><i>Peter Medawar, for example, who I rate as the toughest-minded thinker of his time … </i><br /><br />It's not at all clear, based on current performance, that he would be pleased with your endorsement.<br /><br /><i>But people dying in the streets is, among the rich countries, restricted to the United States. </i><br /><br />Bollocks. Pure, unadulterated, bollocks.<br /><br /><i>It's true that countries with moral medical care systems do a better job of providing the support that was part of the theory of de-institutionalization. </i><br /><br />Harry, you can't possibly have read your own link. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatric_institutions#Today" rel="nofollow">Here</a> it is, but new and improved to point to the relevant part of the article.<br /><br />(Bonus round for those in the viewing audience: Spot Harry's gross question begging.)Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.com