A Solution for the Disadvantaged

[bernie14]

havent read the entire thread, but doesnt this place sound a lot like pyongyang?

 

[Cutlass]

A.) How do you prove intent?
B.) How can you say that abstinence education is designed to fail? What on earth could possibly a more effective method of birth control than abstinence? Do you seriously think there are people sitting behind a desk saying, "We're going to promote this so it fails." Why would people who are passionate about their beliefs want their beliefs to be proven wrong?
C.) You are attributing this to the OP. While I think it is a shortsighted plan, I do not think her intent is for her idea to fail. Don't you think this is a strong charge? I read her posts pretty thoroughly and I don't think there is any merit in your charge.
D.) If this plan designed to fail by design, and if the EPA and OSHA were reformed, then doesn't that mean that this plan could be adjusted as well?
E.) I don't get how you can say that the EPA and OSHA were designed to fail when they generally turned out to be upstanding government programs.

A) Inferred from actions. People who oppose a program, yet set it up or run it anyways, but do so in a way that interferes with the stated intent of the program, can be inferred to have worked to sabotage it.
B) We know with certainty that it will fail. There is no actual dispute that teens will not behave in that manner. So to have a policy that we know with certainty will fail, and yet insist that that is the way to do it, means designed failure.
C) If her intent, and I actually aimed nothing at her, I was not responding to her - you made that part up, isn't for failure, it is only because of the ignorance behind the proposal. And making a policy proposal out of ignorance that profound is essentially the same as designing for failure.
D) The possibility that something could be reformed in the future is, at best, a weak defense of doing it badly now. But I will concede the point. Sometimes the politics of the situation just flat out prevent a good design on the first attempt. And, as the old saying goes, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Sometimes an imperfect move in the right direction is better than doing nothing at all. so you really need to look at the proposal in more depth.
E) I've studied them. Wrote papers on them back in grad school. OSHA and EPA were designed to be symbolic programs to buy votes, not to be effective at their assigned objectives. You look at the original OSHA law it says, in effect, "Here's a list of what should work. You can't do those things".

Moderator Action: 'If her intent...isn't for failure, it is only because of the ignorance behind the proposal' is trolling, Cutlass. Up until this point you'd made sure it wasn't personal, but this point is.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[BuckeyeJim]

A.) Inferred from actions? The type of inferences you speak of are subjective and rife with partisanship. Saying that results don't align with what you expect on a personal level does not prove sabotage.
B.) I dunno, while I have problems with Muslim society, they pretty much have the whole premarital sex problem on lock down. Seems to work fine in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
C.) Who are you addressing though? And I think ignorance is a strong word. It would appear to me that she put a substantial time covering her bases there, and has kept it pretty open ended.
D.) You concede the point, okay. But let me pose another question. I am against comprehensive sex ed, so if I was a politician, why would I start a fledgling, poorly planned program, that I specifically wanted to fail if there was even a chance that someone else would come along and build upon it so that it might work? That would be crazy, and political suicide. This isn't how politics works.
E.) You do understand that a LOT of government programs start out this way?

 

[Cutlass]

A.) Inferred from actions? The type of inferences you speak of are subjective and rife with partisanship. Saying that results don't align with what you expect on a personal level does not prove sabotage.
B.) I dunno, while I have problems with Muslim society, they pretty much have the whole premarital sex problem on lock down. Seems to work fine in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
C.) Who are you addressing though? And I think ignorance is a strong word. It would appear to me that she put a substantial time covering her bases there, and has kept it pretty open ended.
D.) You concede the point, okay. But let me pose another question. I am against comprehensive sex ed, so if I was a politician, why would I start a fledgling, poorly planned program, that I specifically wanted to fail if there was even a chance that someone else would come along and build upon it so that it might work? That would be crazy, and political suicide. This isn't how politics works.
E.) You do understand that a LOT of government programs start out this way?

A) Doesn't it? "I hate welfare! They don't deserve my tax dollars! So I'll make it so hard to get that they never have a chance!"
B) So we're all forced to give up freedom and become fundamentalist Muslims? What odds do you give of that working?
C) I didn't read past the first paragraph of the OP. I very rarely read anything she writes. Look to who I reply to.
D) Then why do it at all? Why make a program that doesn't have the best possible chance of success?
E) Actually, no. Those 2 are remarkably different.

Moderator Action: 'I very rarely read anything she writes' isn't really necessary either. Infraction for this and the previous post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[BuckeyeJim]

A.) How can you say this when you haven't read her post?
B.) No we're not. We don't have to be Muslim in order to abstain. We just have to abstain. We don't have to give up any freedom either.
C.) How can you call something "ignorant," and accuse that she wants her plan to fail without reading her post?
D.) Exactly. Why do it all?
E.) Our government has spent decades doing this. FDR spent 12 years putting together poorly planned economic plans, plans that were self defeating and punitive, programs that didn't work, that were underfunded, that didn't reach far enough. Many of his plans are figments of memories, so no, OSHA and the EPA are not remarkably different.

 

[Cutlass]

A.) How can you say this when you haven't read her post?
B.) No we're not. We don't have to be Muslim in order to abstain. We just have to abstain. We don't have to give up any freedom either.
C.) How can you call something "ignorant," and accuse that she wants her plan to fail without reading her post?
D.) Exactly. Why do it all?
E.) Our government has spent decades doing this. FDR spent 12 years putting together poorly planned economic plans, plans that were self defeating and punitive, programs that didn't work, that were underfunded, that didn't reach far enough. Many of his plans are figments of memories, so no, OSHA and the EPA are not remarkably different.

A) See post above. I am not responding to the OP.
B) People in a free country are not going to choose that.
C) See post above. I am not responding to the OP.
D) Pick an issue. Is it worth a public policy response?
E) Then you really have never looked into OSHA or EPA. There is a fundamental difference between not knowing what to do, which is FDR, and trying to buy votes while doing nothing, which is Nixon.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: I think this thread has well and truly run its course. Closed.