Go read the abstract and then come back and discuss it instead of just trying to score points in whatever debate you think this is.

lol. Fair enough Mr. Chairman. Please accept my apology.

Meanwhile, would someone else please help me improve myself. I don't know what abstract Mark is referring to and I don't dare ask him to clarify after I've shown such a lack of respect.

The one you skimmed over previously. Actually, read the abstract, and then the rest of the page, too.

PLOS ONE: Prescription Drugs Associated with Reports of Violence Towards Others

It's not simply correlation between people taking psychoactive drugs and people who act out on suicidal/homicidal urges. They are looking for statistical significance in the number of violent incidents and comparing it to various baselines to isolate the effect of psychoactive drugs.

Most of the recent commentary, both on this thread and in the world at large, seems to be predicated on an underlying assumption that we* have an obligation to attempt to prevent acts of large-scale violence from occurring, and that preventing individuals from committing violent acts is inherently good.


Am I interpreting this correctly?


* = "we" can be interpreted to mean society as a whole, the federal or state governments, or any other abstraction which functions as a proxy for "all of most of the citizens of the US."

I would say that's a pretty good inference.

I agree with your summation.

So, the prevention of violent acts is universally more important than the protection of individual liberty.

That is, apparently, the direction most have been leaning. I, personally, happen to disagree with it, but it's getting harder to be heard without being called names by those leading the charge.

I am not the most eloquent of speakers, which doesn't help.

I'm assuming you mean that you disagree with it in this instance, but shouldn't we recognize that it's not an either/or decision* -- the safety/liberty question is something of a continuum.

We accept police monitoring our driving speed in order to maintain safe travel on public roads.

We accept the FDA restricting our choices in order to prevent dangerous or harmful foods or drugs from being sold.

We accept all kinds of taxes (a restriction of our financial liberty) to pay for safe road construction, fire departments, water standards, and so on.

In fact, most of what the government does can be seen as a restriction on individual liberty; we just don't mind it because we believe that, for the most part, we're getting the better end of the deal -- some measure of safety or some mitigation of risk that individually we could not accomplish.

The efficacy of these efforts can be debated, certainly, but the fact that we frequently and willingly give up our individual liberty in exchange for the promise of safety is pretty uncontroversial, I'd think.

So I'd shift the language a bit -- it's not that the promise of safety is "universally more important" than individual liberty. It's that the trade-off between the promise of safety and individual liberty is hard to calculate, and different groups calculate it in accordance with varying priorities.




*Anarchists may disagree, obviously, as they fully embrace the notion that it is an either/or decision.

mgeoffriau, that's a very good point. But, you have to admit that it's gotten a bit out of hand in the past decade. It's very hard to argue against "for the children" or "for the safety of the public". Patriot act, anyone?

I'll give you an example. School busses are now required to stop at all train crossings. Complete stop, lights flashing. Every damn time. Even when there's crossing gates, because, you know, it's for the children. What kind of monster would risk their lives for only a simple stop? Maybe the guy that gets stuck behind the buss that has to stop 3 times on the way to work, when no trains EVER come through at that hour?

We constantly errode the freedom and resonsibility of the individual for the public good. Guns used to be available in hardware stores when I was a kid. Used to be you could mail order them from Sears, and I dreamed of the day i could finally get that .22 I wanted. But now we "restrict" guns, and the shootings get more frequent.

Maybe, just maybe it isn't the damn guns?

You went from "preventing individuals from committing violent acts is inherently good" to "the prevention of violent acts is universally more important than the protection of individual liberty."

That does not appear to me to be a binary, "yes/no, either/or" type of question, as Mark points out.

I think you can logically affirm the first point without agreeing with the second.

A Nobel Prize and now Person of the Year.

Can't wait to see my new tax bill!!!

This dude is full of win!!!

If you make under $200k MAGI as an individual or $250k MAGI as a household, I will bet you $20 that you will not see your tax bill go up for 2013 apart from an expiration of the temporary payroll tax reduction.

:party:

I don't agree with everything you say Jack, but I must admit it is fun to watch someone who actually knows tax law shoot down the hyperbole from both sides of the spectrum.

I hope you're right. I was trying to figure out my taxes for this year and got lost in the mind boggling number of rules and exceptions and exemptions and deductions and credits and limits. This is the first year being able to fully itemize. Last year was just barely over the standard deduction. This year should be 2-3 times it.

Everything Obama and the Democrats have presented, to the best of my understanding, has involved leaving all the "Bush tax cuts" in place for 2013 for everyone except very high income earners.

In order for most people to see their taxes go up by anything other than the expiration of the payroll tax holiday, Congress will have to refuse to find a compromise and voluntarily let taxes go up on everyone by doing nothing.

Then, they will go back and retroactively reduce tax rates for the vast majority of people.


Now, if you make over $200k/$250k MAGI, then you are definitely going to see your taxes go up in 2013. The question is "by how much?"


Also note that MAGI = "modified adjusted gross income" and is your wage income plus/minus rental income, capital gains, investment income (like interest earned on CDs or savings accounts), Social Security income, pension income, etc before deductions, except for tax-deductible retirement contributions like 401(k), 403(b), TSP, IRA, etc. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist.

6-Foot-8 Transgender Player Takes Court Against Delta College Women’s Team « CBS Sacramento

"be yourself"

says the 51 yo transgender who joined a woman's college basketball team.


I'm sorry, but even if you chop off your penis and talk in a fake voice, you're still a man. If I was on an opposing team, I'd sue the league.

related: Judge awards more than $700,000 in legal fees to Kosilek

what the hell is this world coming to? the state pays for this convicted murder to have a sex change operation while in prision, and then dolls out a shit ton more money to HIS lawyers.

and you guys wonder why im adamently against paying taxes?

Unrelated: