Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
jstoesz
ParticipantI too find this discussion particularly funny. I personally find little offensive (although little in life is offensive if you always consider the source). My beef with the current national conversation is not that is vitriolic (a word I have heard far too often lately), but that it is painfully banal. I would appreciate a more vitriolic conversation if it were at least filled with creative and covert insults instead of trite analogies to Hitler (see Dave Barry “how to win and argument”). But to be fair to Barry, a good bit of booze would also probably improve the conversation as well. Who ever thinks the us vs. them attitude in the media caused this tragedy must also think Marilyn Manson killed those kids in columbine. Maybe it is our societies inability to express itself, devoid of F words, that has caused a nation of frustrated schizophrenics. Or maybe we should herald the guidance of plato for a boxing ring in the center of every town (although he was most certainly a fascist).
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=jstoesz]Fact is, prop 13 incites perverse incentives. It would be far preferable to simplify (ie reduce loopholes and stipulations). Across the board reduce taxes, and stop allowing people to game the system. Why is it beneficial for an old person to stay in their home of 30 years. Why should they get a reduced rate because they are sedentary? Because they have a fixed income? Why should they be better off than the old person who scales their housing needs to the size of their family as it changes through the years. (Seems to me the retiree who downsizes is being a more intelligent steward of resources). We should not tax people based on ability to pay and subsidize based on need (inability to pay). That is the fastest way to an irresponsible society, and it incites perverse outcomes that are not easily identified.[/quote]
The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.[/quote]
No disrespect for old people. I just don’t like tax breaks (it just screams inequality). Taxes should not be used to dole out favors for preferred groups of people. The simpler, the more equitable, and the lower, the better (to a point obviously, any principle can be taken too far).
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=jstoesz]Fact is, prop 13 incites perverse incentives. It would be far preferable to simplify (ie reduce loopholes and stipulations). Across the board reduce taxes, and stop allowing people to game the system. Why is it beneficial for an old person to stay in their home of 30 years. Why should they get a reduced rate because they are sedentary? Because they have a fixed income? Why should they be better off than the old person who scales their housing needs to the size of their family as it changes through the years. (Seems to me the retiree who downsizes is being a more intelligent steward of resources). We should not tax people based on ability to pay and subsidize based on need (inability to pay). That is the fastest way to an irresponsible society, and it incites perverse outcomes that are not easily identified.[/quote]
The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.[/quote]
No disrespect for old people. I just don’t like tax breaks (it just screams inequality). Taxes should not be used to dole out favors for preferred groups of people. The simpler, the more equitable, and the lower, the better (to a point obviously, any principle can be taken too far).
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=jstoesz]Fact is, prop 13 incites perverse incentives. It would be far preferable to simplify (ie reduce loopholes and stipulations). Across the board reduce taxes, and stop allowing people to game the system. Why is it beneficial for an old person to stay in their home of 30 years. Why should they get a reduced rate because they are sedentary? Because they have a fixed income? Why should they be better off than the old person who scales their housing needs to the size of their family as it changes through the years. (Seems to me the retiree who downsizes is being a more intelligent steward of resources). We should not tax people based on ability to pay and subsidize based on need (inability to pay). That is the fastest way to an irresponsible society, and it incites perverse outcomes that are not easily identified.[/quote]
The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.[/quote]
No disrespect for old people. I just don’t like tax breaks (it just screams inequality). Taxes should not be used to dole out favors for preferred groups of people. The simpler, the more equitable, and the lower, the better (to a point obviously, any principle can be taken too far).
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=jstoesz]Fact is, prop 13 incites perverse incentives. It would be far preferable to simplify (ie reduce loopholes and stipulations). Across the board reduce taxes, and stop allowing people to game the system. Why is it beneficial for an old person to stay in their home of 30 years. Why should they get a reduced rate because they are sedentary? Because they have a fixed income? Why should they be better off than the old person who scales their housing needs to the size of their family as it changes through the years. (Seems to me the retiree who downsizes is being a more intelligent steward of resources). We should not tax people based on ability to pay and subsidize based on need (inability to pay). That is the fastest way to an irresponsible society, and it incites perverse outcomes that are not easily identified.[/quote]
The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.[/quote]
No disrespect for old people. I just don’t like tax breaks (it just screams inequality). Taxes should not be used to dole out favors for preferred groups of people. The simpler, the more equitable, and the lower, the better (to a point obviously, any principle can be taken too far).
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=jstoesz]Fact is, prop 13 incites perverse incentives. It would be far preferable to simplify (ie reduce loopholes and stipulations). Across the board reduce taxes, and stop allowing people to game the system. Why is it beneficial for an old person to stay in their home of 30 years. Why should they get a reduced rate because they are sedentary? Because they have a fixed income? Why should they be better off than the old person who scales their housing needs to the size of their family as it changes through the years. (Seems to me the retiree who downsizes is being a more intelligent steward of resources). We should not tax people based on ability to pay and subsidize based on need (inability to pay). That is the fastest way to an irresponsible society, and it incites perverse outcomes that are not easily identified.[/quote]
The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.[/quote]
No disrespect for old people. I just don’t like tax breaks (it just screams inequality). Taxes should not be used to dole out favors for preferred groups of people. The simpler, the more equitable, and the lower, the better (to a point obviously, any principle can be taken too far).
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
I know little or nothing about ECT (I thought it was still called electro shock therapy). It does seem rather quackish, but many things about psychiatrists seem rather quackish…
I am an ME who loves the simplicity of mechanisms for their cause and effect. I have little love for pills, because the cause and effect is so muddled up in the myriads of unknown side effects. Psych meds scare the bejesus out of me. So needless to say, I find ECT even more ridiculous.
I only brought it up because I thought a previous poster had “one flew over the cuckoo nest” visions of lobotomies and ECT’s.
I think most modern medicine has a tendency to hype the positive and overlook the negative. But I guess I have stepped into a field that I know little about (my wife ridicules me constantly for my distrust of medical studies).
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
I know little or nothing about ECT (I thought it was still called electro shock therapy). It does seem rather quackish, but many things about psychiatrists seem rather quackish…
I am an ME who loves the simplicity of mechanisms for their cause and effect. I have little love for pills, because the cause and effect is so muddled up in the myriads of unknown side effects. Psych meds scare the bejesus out of me. So needless to say, I find ECT even more ridiculous.
I only brought it up because I thought a previous poster had “one flew over the cuckoo nest” visions of lobotomies and ECT’s.
I think most modern medicine has a tendency to hype the positive and overlook the negative. But I guess I have stepped into a field that I know little about (my wife ridicules me constantly for my distrust of medical studies).
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
I know little or nothing about ECT (I thought it was still called electro shock therapy). It does seem rather quackish, but many things about psychiatrists seem rather quackish…
I am an ME who loves the simplicity of mechanisms for their cause and effect. I have little love for pills, because the cause and effect is so muddled up in the myriads of unknown side effects. Psych meds scare the bejesus out of me. So needless to say, I find ECT even more ridiculous.
I only brought it up because I thought a previous poster had “one flew over the cuckoo nest” visions of lobotomies and ECT’s.
I think most modern medicine has a tendency to hype the positive and overlook the negative. But I guess I have stepped into a field that I know little about (my wife ridicules me constantly for my distrust of medical studies).
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
I know little or nothing about ECT (I thought it was still called electro shock therapy). It does seem rather quackish, but many things about psychiatrists seem rather quackish…
I am an ME who loves the simplicity of mechanisms for their cause and effect. I have little love for pills, because the cause and effect is so muddled up in the myriads of unknown side effects. Psych meds scare the bejesus out of me. So needless to say, I find ECT even more ridiculous.
I only brought it up because I thought a previous poster had “one flew over the cuckoo nest” visions of lobotomies and ECT’s.
I think most modern medicine has a tendency to hype the positive and overlook the negative. But I guess I have stepped into a field that I know little about (my wife ridicules me constantly for my distrust of medical studies).
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
I know little or nothing about ECT (I thought it was still called electro shock therapy). It does seem rather quackish, but many things about psychiatrists seem rather quackish…
I am an ME who loves the simplicity of mechanisms for their cause and effect. I have little love for pills, because the cause and effect is so muddled up in the myriads of unknown side effects. Psych meds scare the bejesus out of me. So needless to say, I find ECT even more ridiculous.
I only brought it up because I thought a previous poster had “one flew over the cuckoo nest” visions of lobotomies and ECT’s.
I think most modern medicine has a tendency to hype the positive and overlook the negative. But I guess I have stepped into a field that I know little about (my wife ridicules me constantly for my distrust of medical studies).
Participanthaha. Meh, I have been tasered before (Long story, but groups of males can be quite curious)…its not fun, but I would take it over a punch to the face.
Personally, I find it appalling, not that schools employ tasers, but that schools have any need for this what so ever. Teachers and schools have lost their power to maintain discipline, and this is the clear result.
Participanthaha. Meh, I have been tasered before (Long story, but groups of males can be quite curious)…its not fun, but I would take it over a punch to the face.
Personally, I find it appalling, not that schools employ tasers, but that schools have any need for this what so ever. Teachers and schools have lost their power to maintain discipline, and this is the clear result.
Participanthaha. Meh, I have been tasered before (Long story, but groups of males can be quite curious)…its not fun, but I would take it over a punch to the face.
Personally, I find it appalling, not that schools employ tasers, but that schools have any need for this what so ever. Teachers and schools have lost their power to maintain discipline, and this is the clear result.
-
AuthorPosts