breaking: the washington post doesn't understand basic economics

[Al B. Sure!]

Wow, you've managed to turn stupidity into an art form.

Can someone actually HUMAN come in here and back me up on this? The history of the world is filled with the stubborn heroics of those who spat in the face of all practical utilitarian sense and clung to their ideals no matter the consequences! They did things because it was the 'right' thing to do.

(I'm not equating banning BP to any of this. I'm just saying that humans are illogical but possibly heroic beasts)

[Kuciwalker]

AS: is there ever a time when we shouldn't do the right thing?

[Kuciwalker]

Can someone actually HUMAN come in here and back me up on this? The history of the world is filled with the stubborn heroics of those who spat in the face of all practical utilitarian sense and clung to their ideals no matter the consequences!

Yeah, like the Nazis.

















*click*

It all makes sense now.

[Kuciwalker]

The idea of a dichotomy between "the right thing to do" and "the thing we ought to do" is just hilariously incoherent

[KrazyHorse]

Again, it's not about whether it has an effect or not! It's about the principle. There's a lot of evidence that the War on Drugs is retarded but there's reason for many to support it no matter the efficacy of it just because it's the 'right' thing to do.

Do you think I don't understand "symbolic rationality", you ****ing nincompoop?

How about you stop trying to play with the big boys when you're so obviously inferior?

you're not as bright as you think you are, KH.

I've got a pretty decent sense of my own intelligence. The fact that you feel qualified to judge mine means that you've got a vastly overestimated sense of your own.

[Al B. Sure!]

AS: is there ever a time when we shouldn't do the right thing?

Right by whose standards?

Let me take a step back because I notice that in my discussions with you and KH, our brains are possibly wired differently or I'm just bad at the art of debate or whatever... I think I jump to points too quickly without clearly delineating them.

Let's take the war on drugs for example. Now, granted the research is mixed on the effectiveness of the war on drugs, but suppose it were clearer that the war on drugs is not cost effective nor even effective in attaining its goal of stopping drug use. Suppose government control through legalization was empirically shown to be more cost effective and more effective in limiting drug use than the war on drugs. Logically, if this were true, you'd be stupid to support the war on drugs.

But if that were to happen, I guarantee you regardless there would still be untold thousands of Americans who would still support the war on drugs. You might call them stupid and they very well might be stupid because they are undermining their damn stated goal!

But the point is there is something in human nature that would motivate these people to continue to fight a losing cause that they know is not effective. It would be the mere principle that is valuable to them.

What good is the martyr who rejects Rome and dies to the lion in the coliseum? He is not spreading his faith. He would do far better in achieving his goals by appeasing the Romans and secretly preaching as most Christians did. No, he was motivated by righteousness. He wanted to do the principled thing.

(I'm not equating those who support the drug war to martyrs on any value comparison. I'm just noting examples of a phenomena of human behavior)

[Al B. Sure!]

Do you think I don't understand "symbolic rationality", you ****ing nincompoop?

So why the **** you act like you don't understand what I was talking about?

[KrazyHorse]

Because you don't understand what the **** you're talking about.

[Al B. Sure!]

Because you don't understand what the **** you're talking about.

Explain. I need it broken down 'Barney-style'

[Hauldren Collider]

Ghetto econ don't work in the brokerage

[Kuciwalker]

But if that were to happen, I guarantee you regardless there would still be untold thousands of Americans who would still support the war on drugs. You might call them stupid and they very well might be stupid because they are undermining their damn stated goal!

But the point is there is something in human nature that would motivate these people to continue to fight a losing cause that they know is not effective. It would be the mere principle that is valuable to them.

Yes, obviously there would be such people because there are such people. You've just pointed out that mass stupidity is part of human nature. Thanks?

What good is the martyr who rejects Rome and dies to the lion in the coliseum? He is not spreading his faith. He would do far better in achieving his goals by appeasing the Romans and secretly preaching as most Christians did. No, he was motivated by righteousness. He wanted to do the principled thing.

The argument for martyrdom usually is a consequentialist one: it does, according to its proponents, convert people because it demonstrates the strength of your faith.

[KrazyHorse]

Albie's apparent argument is that people are stupid, therefore it's okay to be stupid...

[Hauldren Collider]

[action=Hauldren Collider]braces himself for the "look here that sounds like what the species of reptile known as actuary would say/obviously we would hear this from the overprivileged fauntleroys" comment.[/action]

[Al B. Sure!]

Albie's apparent argument is that people are stupid, therefore it's okay to be stupid...

I don't know. The 'stupid' aspect of it exists alongside the 'heroic' aspect of it. It's just different sides of the same coin.

The point anyway which I made originally is Kuci's saying of "THE WASHINGTON POST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND BASIC ECONOMICS!" is silly because those who would be in favor of banning BP probably don't give a **** about whether it has any effect on BP. They want to do it out of 'principle', an understanding of economics is irrelevant.

hence...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, Kuci. A ban on BP wouldn't be economically motivated. It would be purely a political and principle gesture.

[N35t0r]

It would be an incredibly pointless gesture since BP would be essentially unaffected, and you're as dumb as the WaPo editors for not seeing that immediately.

But it's not to punish BP, it's for the votes