Originally posted by Digi
But...that's not what they're doing at all. They're required to divulge health information. In no way whatsoever are they regulating what people eat. How is this relevant?
And I find nothing wrong with the "tell them whats in your food" angle but at the same time lots of people either are not going to care to read it or just simply wont care. Look at hot dogs I think everyone knows whats in a hotdog but they are still a pretty big seller as far as food goes. I attribute this to the mentality of "taste good who give a crap whats in it" It's relevant because well can you tell this wasn't made to target places like Mcdonalds? They can't force them to stop selling unhealthy foods so they hope that it will make them nervous to make their food healthier so people wont go "Ewww Im not eating here anymore" which is very close to regulation.
Originally posted by Digi
Technically it was taxation without representation, and also had to do with religious and personal freedoms, so it's not perfectly analogous to this. Your point about taxation in general may have some merit, but it seems mired in a tangential point.I'd be all for a smaller government, for example, even in regards to health care. But within the system we have, this isn't a horrible solution. Flawed, perhaps, but certainly not revolution-metaphor-level bad.
You can't tell me that this taxation isn't similar to the negative reinforcement people use on dogs...such as they poop on the couch so you smack them on the nose with the newspaper. Sure they could still do it but they don't want to get smacked on the nose. Just like if you don't get healthcare you get taxed 1% of your salary. Even someone that only makes 30k now has to pay $300 in extra taxes. So my question is if someone can't afford healthcare how can they afford the tax for not having healthcare? We need more then a smaller government we need a less involved government and we need a government that understands it actually holds no power and it is the people that hold the power. But we have a government that says....ok they didn't want my healthcare when it said "you must get health insurance" so lets make it instead get it or get a tax...because it's not like the government doesn't know how much the people hate taxes. As for the revolution metaphor, sure this isn't the same level as bad as The American Revaluation but the point was making punitive taxes under any rule but especially in America is very contradictory to the point of America.
Originally posted by inimalist
idk, I just see it as really strangelike, I'm no bible expert, but in no interpretation of Jesus that I know (including crazy ones like the Moonies or David Koresh) is his focus not on the less fortunate. I think the one constant everyone can agree on about Jesus is that he went to the sick, the poor, etc, and he helped them because it was the right thing to do, not because of personal gain or anything else.
I get, you know, maybe someone can differentiate in their mind, "well, Jesus said this, but our government needs to do that", but I never see that sophistication from the right. Even... I think it was Walker... after someone pointed out to him that Rand was anti-Christian, back tracked from Objectivism to be like "oh ya, Jesus, hes the man, praise God!", though, his economic bill still wreaks havoc on the lower class.
I mean, I suppose what I am trying to say is, if the ideals of Jesus aren't what we should be using to determine our government policy, I want conservatives to admit that. I want them to explicitly say, "yes, this policy is against what our lord and saviour taught, but he never tried to run a nation of 300 million people". I mean, like, obviously I don't support health care for religious reasons, but for people who [b]we know
oppose things like gay marriage for religious reasons, I sort of want to see how they would deal with this. [/B]
All very good points and your reasoning is sound.
However, there are groups of Christians that can still object to forced charity.
Mormons. 😐
We think that the "Prime Evil" is the removal of "will". The worst thing that can happen is removing the ability to make our own choices concerning morality. This flows, logically, into charity. Charity must be given, not taken. If it is taken, it is not charity. If the Government taxes the people so that it can be redistributed to help those in more need, it is not charity. In fact, it can be considered the opposite: it can be considered evil...depending on the perspective of the person.
Here's why: giving a gift begrudgingly does not make it charitable and it is counted as you still being evil. It should be given willingly and out of love.
So, in a way, some can pay their taxes and it can be considered indirect charity. Some can refuse to pay their taxes and give, directly. I consider both morally equal. But for the latter, only in a perfect world would it substitute for taxes. The world is obviously not perfect. So completely gutting and replacing taxes with direct charity will not work.
There is also a pragmatic and secular reason to oppose "charity via taxes": the inefficiency of the system in place to actually deliver the charity. Tons of administrative overhead, inefficiency of funds distribution, and financial black holes that eat up funds due to failing projects (or something). You also do not get to see the funds delivered or observe the impact or change when it is done at the federal level...meaning...when you turn in your $500 in monthly income taxes, your money does not necessarily end up directly paying for the food that Orphan Annie eats the following week. So there is an apathetic disconnect between paying the taxes and the feeling of genuine charity: contrast that with direct charity where not only your money but your time can have a direct impact on making things better in your community.
If even 20% (arbitrary *sspull) of Americans devoted a significant portion of their income (we'll go with 10% haha) and 2 days out of each month doing voluntary service work: poverty would lose it's sting and there would be a charity surplus. Humans are too selfish to do something like that so we have taxes.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
You can't tell me that this taxation isn't similar to the negative reinforcement people use on dogs...such as they poop on the couch so you smack them on the nose with the newspaper. Sure they could still do it but they don't want to get smacked on the nose. Just like if you don't get healthcare you get taxed 1% of your salary. Even someone that only makes 30k now has to pay $300 in extra taxes. So my question is if someone can't afford healthcare how can they afford the tax for not having healthcare? We need more then a smaller government we need a less involved government and we need a government that understands it actually holds no power and it is the people that hold the power. But we have a government that says....ok they didn't want my healthcare when it said "you must get health insurance" so lets make it instead get it or get a tax...because it's not like the government doesn't know how much the people hate taxes. As for the revolution metaphor, sure this isn't the same level as bad as The American Revaluation but the point was making punitive taxes under any rule but especially in America is very contradictory to the point of America.
What the hell are you even talking about here?
1) The fines will only be if you do not buy insurance and can afford to do so. If you can't afford it, you're not going to be fined. They're also increasing the upper limit at which people can qualify for medicaid to help keep people from falling into this gap of not being able to afford coverage and not being eligible for medicaid. I believe one of the things I saw also said that there will be rebates and credits available to help people afford their coverage.
2) Taxes are only going to be increased on those making over $200k a year. They can afford the .9% increase that it's going to be without any problems.
Also, no, making it so that people know what's in their food is not regulating it in any way, and to say so is completely ridiculous.
Originally posted by Peach
What the hell are you even talking about here?1) The fines will only be if you do not buy insurance and can afford to do so. If you can't afford it, you're not going to be fined. They're also increasing the upper limit at which people can qualify for medicaid to help keep people from falling into this gap of not being able to afford coverage and not being eligible for medicaid. I believe one of the things I saw also said that there will be rebates and credits available to help people afford their coverage.
2) Taxes are only going to be increased on those making over $200k a year. They can afford the .9% increase that it's going to be without any problems.
Also, no, making it so that people know what's in their food is not regulating it in any way, and to say so is completely ridiculous.
none of what you stated was in what I read about this healthcare reform. So maybe I was misinformed on the topic.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
You can't tell me that this taxation isn't similar to the negative reinforcement people use on dogs...such as they poop on the couch so you smack them on the nose with the newspaper. Sure they could still do it but they don't want to get smacked on the nose.
that is positive reinforcement
EDIT: some people might call it positive punishment, because you are trying to extinguish the behaviour, but hitting is a positive reinforcer.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
none of what you stated was in what I read about this healthcare reform. So maybe I was misinformed on the topic.
Clearly. Where on earth are you getting your info from? Fox News?
Also, this is quite interesting.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
And I find nothing wrong with the "tell them whats in your food" angle but at the same time lots of people either are not going to care to read it or just simply wont care. Look at hot dogs I think everyone knows whats in a hotdog but they are still a pretty big seller as far as food goes. I attribute this to the mentality of "taste good who give a crap whats in it" It's relevant because well can you tell this wasn't made to target places like Mcdonalds? They can't force them to stop selling unhealthy foods so they hope that it will make them nervous to make their food healthier so people wont go "Ewww Im not eating here anymore" which is very close to regulation.
But...it's not. It's informing the populace. How is more accurate information a bad thing?
The fact that many won't care also isn't a knock on the bill, it's just an observation of society.
Also, btw, changing your product to match the demands of customers isn't governmental control, it's capitalism.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
You can't tell me that this taxation isn't similar to the negative reinforcement people use on dogs...such as they poop on the couch so you smack them on the nose with the newspaper. Sure they could still do it but they don't want to get smacked on the nose. Just like if you don't get healthcare you get taxed 1% of your salary. Even someone that only makes 30k now has to pay $300 in extra taxes. So my question is if someone can't afford healthcare how can they afford the tax for not having healthcare? We need more then a smaller government we need a less involved government and we need a government that understands it actually holds no power and it is the people that hold the power. But we have a government that says....ok they didn't want my healthcare when it said "you must get health insurance" so lets make it instead get it or get a tax...because it's not like the government doesn't know how much the people hate taxes. As for the revolution metaphor, sure this isn't the same level as bad as The American Revaluation but the point was making punitive taxes under any rule but especially in America is very contradictory to the point of America.
You need to read the link Peach posted on page 1 or 2. The bill doesn't work like you think it does.
Also, "the point of America" is quite subjective. One could easily argue that the point is opportunity for all, which they could then argue the bill helps to provide. The fact that you don't like it doesn't automatically make it unAmerican. And no, it's nothing like the American Revolution. The comparison is such absurd hyperbole I can't even quantify it.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
We need more then a smaller government we need a less involved government and we need a government that understands it actually holds no power and it is the people that hold the power.
This sentence made my brain hurt.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
....since when is hitting considered a positive thing?
Positive reinforcement/punishment is an action that adds an action/stimulus in response to a certain behaviour (if in order to encourage that behaviour, it's reinforcement, if it's to deter that behaviour then it's punishment). Hitting someone = adding an action = positive punishment.
In other words, words can have different meanings depending on the context.
Originally posted by Digi
uhuh
I applied for a job in Seattle, okay 😛
Originally posted by Digi
But...it's not. It's informing the populace. How is more accurate information a bad thing?The fact that many won't care also isn't a knock on the bill, it's just an observation of society.
You need to read the link Peach posted on page 1 or 2. The bill doesn't work like you think it does.
as for my Observation it was meant just as that to point out that these facts are out for a reason and with a public that typically doesn't care the point they are trying to make is pretty...well pointless..
and yes I feel like I very much do need to read this....I will go back a start reading now.
Originally posted by Digi
Also, "the point of America" is quite subjective. One could easily argue that the point is opportunity for all, which they could then argue the bill helps to provide. The fact that you don't like it doesn't automatically make it unAmerican. And no, it's nothing like the American Revolution. The comparison is such absurd hyperbole I can't even quantify it.
so the simple comparison of the tea act is not as stupid as the presupposed tax I was under the impression we had?
as for being unamerican....no simply me not liking it does not make it unamerican but when for example....people are forced into a market and forced to buy is.
Originally posted by Digi
This sentence made my brain hurt. [/B]
The government was created to SERVE the people now it's the governments saying if you don't like what we want we do it anyways. We can be held responsible for voting people in that think this way but as everyone knows most people in politics are liars. The point is people get in these "positions of power" and want to abuse it while it is us the people that are suppose to have the power...heck we are even suppose to be allowed to force people out of the government (as long as it is a majority) and bring in new people we find fit.
Originally posted by Peach
Positive reinforcement/punishment is an action that adds an action/stimulus in response to a certain behaviour (if in order to encourage that behaviour, it's reinforcement, if it's to deter that behaviour then it's punishment). Hitting someone = adding an action = positive punishment.In other words, words can have different meanings depending on the context.
I applied for a job in Seattle, okay 😛
but negative reinforcement is getting someone to do something by way of not so positive reactions
the definition is exactly this
"encouraging desired response using unpleasant stimulus: encouragement of a desired response by giving an unpleasant stimulus when the response is absent, or discouragement of an undesired response by an unpleasant stimulus when the response is present"
and hitting someone or something would be an unpleasant stimulus.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
....since when is hitting considered a positive thing?
you are using "positive" in the wrong sense
in learning theory and specifically conditioning, which you are explicitly referencing, the "positive" and "negative" do not refer to the feelings of the organism, but to the actions of the experimenter or the person conditioning the organism.
So, a positive reinforcer/punishment is one where the conditioner adds something to the organism being conditioned. In the case of reinforcement, this is like a treat or reward, in the case of punishment, this is hitting or a shock.
A negative reinforcer/punishment is one where you take something away from the organism being conditioned. So, for reinforcement, you might stop a loud noise or another unpleasant stimuli, in terms of punishment, it would be taking away a toy or food.
What you described is literally one of the most classic examples of a positive punishment. Conditioning uses these terms to mean what the experimenter is doing to condition an organism, not to represent the experience of the organism itself.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
but negative reinforcement is getting someone to do something by way of not so positive reactionsthe definition is exactly this
"encouraging desired response using unpleasant stimulus: encouragement of a desired response by giving an unpleasant stimulus when the response is absent, or discouragement of an undesired response by an unpleasant stimulus when the response is present"
and hitting someone or something would be an unpleasant stimulus.
citation? because, seriously, you can look this up in any intro psych textbook
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
but negative reinforcement is getting someone to do something by way of not so positive reactionsthe definition is exactly this
"encouraging desired response using unpleasant stimulus: encouragement of a desired response by giving an unpleasant stimulus when the response is absent, or discouragement of an undesired response by an unpleasant stimulus when the response is present"
and hitting someone or something would be an unpleasant stimulus.
...no, it isn't. Your definition is completely wrong.
Negative reinforcement/punishment is influencing behaviour by removing or taking something away. Positive reinforcement/punishment is influencing behaviour by adding something.
Negative reinforcers are not necessarily something unpleasant, nor are positive reinforcers things that are always pleasant. It's completely and totally different than that.
Originally posted by inimalist
citation? because, seriously, you can look this up in any intro psych textbook
Damn you for beating me to this 😛
And seriously, this is like day 1 Psych 101 stuff. Even wiki has a damn good explanation of it.
Originally posted by Peach
Positive reinforcement/punishment is an action that adds an action/stimulus in response to a certain behaviour (if in order to encourage that behaviour, it's reinforcement, if it's to deter that behaviour then it's punishment). Hitting someone = adding an action = positive punishment.In other words, words can have different meanings depending on the context.
It isn't always adding an action of the "behavior needs to change" person, right? I thought it was also considered positive reinforcement if it stopped an action.
In other words, I thought the "positive" of the statement refers to adding of an agent/element to the system of the individual to stop a certain behavior. The "positive" is the additional, but "not good", element added by the...let's say parent.
Originally posted by Peach
Negative reinforcement/punishment is influencing behaviour by removing or taking something away. Positive reinforcement/punishment is influencing behaviour by adding something.
Edit -
Oh yes. I see, now. Yeah, that's the way I understand those words, too.
Originally posted by Peach
Damn you for beating me to this 😛And seriously, this is like day 1 Psych 101 stuff. Even wiki has a damn good explanation of it.
admittedly, it is a tough concept. I taught a section of first year psych this last year, and it is something people really get hung up on.
I found the best way to communicate it was to try and break it down to the fact that "positive" and "negative" are the actions of the experimenter, not about how the organism feels.
Also, reducing it to, literally, "experimenter", "organism", "etc", and not trying to make confusing "real world" scenarios.
well, maybe not a tough concept, just sort of counter-intuitive, especially given how little classic learning theories like these are part of modern psych, outside of animal studies. There is nothing else like this that a student comes across in first year stuff.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It isn't always adding an action of the "behavior needs to change" person, right? I thought it was also considered positive reinforcement if it stopped an action.In other words, I thought the "positive" of the statement refers to adding of an agent/element to the system of the individual to stop a certain behavior. The "positive" is the additional, but "not good", element added by the...let's say parent.
it can, though to avoid additional confusion, people tend to call things that increase a behaviour a "reinforcer", whereas things that reduce a behaviour a "punishment".
afaik, "reinforcement" can technically be used in either case...
Originally posted by inimalist
admittedly, it is a tough concept. I taught a section of first year psych this last year, and it is something people really get hung up on.I found the best way to communicate it was to try and break it down to the fact that "positive" and "negative" are the actions of the experimenter, not about how the organism feels.
Also, reducing it to, literally, "experimenter", "organism", "etc", and not trying to make confusing "real world" scenarios.
well, maybe not a tough concept, just sort of counter-intuitive, especially given how little classic learning theories like these are part of modern psych, outside of animal studies. There is nothing else like this that a student comes across in first year stuff.
True. I think when I was taking early psych courses that was the concept that people got stuck on the most, and it's just one of those things where eventually it clicks and you go "ohhhhhhh that makes sense".
The way you explained it is definitely good, though. It's a hard concept to try and explain.