Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Dept. of Interior


cgent47 has an opinion.

"Nearly 50 million Americans received benefits from the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program — better known as food stamps — this 
year, the highest number in recorded history."
"Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to “Please Do Not Feed the Animals.”
"Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent
on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."
This ends today’s lesson.

59 comments:

edutcher said...

That needs to go viral.

sakredkow said...

A conversation about policy that starts by comparing the poor to animals is probably not going to get anyone anywhere.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

(1) That's fucking great!

(2) Not only were some people not math majors, it's also entirely possible that some people were not biology majors.

(3) I was raking up leaves from the back lawn yesterday and I rescued a toad. I put him in a shrub bed where at least I knew I wouldn't step on him or lacerate him with a rake or lawnmower.

I didn't feel good about the situation at all.

Episodes like that make me think about God.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

A conversation about policy that starts by comparing the poor to animals is probably not going to get anyone anywhere.

So you don't think humans are animals? Why are liberals always anti-science?

sakredkow said...

So you don't think humans are animals? Why are liberals always anti-science?

Good morning Ignorance is Bliss.

Shrug. I stand by my comment.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Dependency - not good for animals. Fantastic for the democrat party.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

phx-

This sort of thing will play well with the Republican base, will turn off the Democratic base, and could go either way with the people in between. So you may well be right, based on the optics.

Does it ever make you sad that, in order to be on the winning side of the politics, you have to be on the losing side of logic and reason?

( I did phrase that to be provocative, but I will freely admit that there are times that I am saddened by things done and said by people on 'my side' that may be good politics, by are either clearly false, or wildly overstated and misleading. It happens on both sides. But more on your side:) )

sakredkow said...

Does it ever make you sad that, in order to be on the winning side of the politics, you have to be on the losing side of logic and reason?

I think you are misusing logic and reason in a sophomoric way.

sakredkow said...

Although I don't think you are doing it intentionally.

Aridog said...

phx said...

A conversation about policy that starts by comparing the poor to animals...

Probably not, but to those of us who study human and animal behavior (avocationally) it is a relevant observation. I say that without negative connotation, because in my world, I've known far more animals I respect than I have people. Plus, the observation is empirically true, for most species.

sakredkow said...

What I appreciate, however, is the effort to reason with me about these issues without making it personal or making it a casus belli.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

You are right, it is not intentional. Would you be willing to explain the misuse?

Do you not think it is logical that if animals learn dependence when offered free food, that people, whom I give credit for being better learners, would learn the same thing?

sakredkow said...

Probably not,

You don't have to say anything beyond that. IMO everything that follows may be interesting, reasonable, debatable, or flat wrong, but it's still piggybacked on a quote that shows a nasty and self-satisfied way of generalizing about the poor and needy.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...a quote that shows a nasty and self-satisfied way of generalizing about the poor and needy.

Okay, I understand your point a bit better. When you see an association between animals and the poor, you think of the animals as sub-human. If that is the association you have, then I agree it is nasty.

I think this is similar to many of the cases where liberals accuse conservatives of using dog whistles and code words.

Trooper York said...

I was in line behind someone in a gourmet food shop who was buying arugla and endive with an EBT card.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

You read up on the history of the theory of evolution and you learn that the longest-running argument against it is that we should resist the implication that we aren't special.

There's a market for flattery, apparently.

sakredkow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sakredkow said...

The famed tin ear of the right.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The famed tin ear of the right.

Hard to tell without hearing your tone of voice. Are you saying the right has a tin-ear, or are you saying they fake a tin-ear when convenient?

Aridog said...

Phx said ...

... a nasty and self-satisfied way of generalizing ...

Perhaps. It is also empirically true.

Humans think way too highly of themselves on the fundamental level.

Trooper York said...

Just about every other time I am in the bodega somebody is buying beer with food stamps.

Trooper York said...

I don't know if it is legal because I don't know if they guy puts it in as beer or as food. Or how they measure that.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Was it a grisly bear? 'Cause they learn that sort of thing in the national parks.

Trooper York said...

I don't think the right has to worry about having a tin ear as the people on Food Stamps will never ever in a million years vote for a conservative.

So what's the harm in keeping it real yo?

Trooper York said...

It was Bud Light and that is as grisly as it gets dude.

Known Unknown said...

Bud Light is the opposite of grisly.

Bud Light is slightly beer-flavored water.

deborah said...

Comparing poor people to animals. How drool.

Icepick said...

Okay, phx, I have a question for you. Handing out food to animals has been known to breed dependency in the animals in question, to the point of making them aggressive when they don't receive the expected hand-outs.

Now, why should we assume humans, who are in fact also animals, will behave differently?

Icepick said...

ON a related note, how is it a sign of Obama's exceptional handling of the economy that SNAP usage continues to grow even after four years of economic recovery? How are increasing levels of poverty and governmental dependence seen as factors that make voting FOR Obama a moral imperative for liberals?

Trooper York said...

Because....Because....BECAUSE........OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Methadras said...

File this under delicious internal irony.

Methadras said...

phx said...

A conversation about policy that starts by comparing the poor to animals is probably not going to get anyone anywhere.


Only someone with your kind of thinking would compare the poor to animals, but that just tells me what you really think of the poor. Thanks for illustrating that.

deborah said...

SNAP

Methadras said...

Looks like the Snap snafu from Xerox was no 'glitch' after all.


Icepick said...

deborah said...

SNAP


Snap!

Icepick said...

Maybe even an around the world and back snap!

deborah said...

lol :)

sakredkow said...

Perhaps. It is also empirically true.

Humans think way too highly of themselves on the fundamental level.


It's easy for the strong to lecture the weak.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Actually, I just make it look easy. Don't worry, I'll cover that in next week's lecture.

Methadras said...

phx said...

It's easy for the strong to lecture the weak.


It's even easier to say stuff that has no substance of meaning. You've been doing a lot of that today. This above statement is no different.

sakredkow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sakredkow said...

It's even easier to say stuff that has no substance of meaning. You've been doing a lot of that today.

Must be the forumula:

You disagree with me = no substance of meaning



Aridog said...

phx said...

Reference: "Perhaps. It is also empirically true.

Humans think way too highly of themselves on the fundamental level."

It's easy for the strong to lecture the weak.

How on earth do you get that idea from what I said. I am explicitly saying all animals, including you and me, are "weak" (your word) where it relates to sustenance. Only our exposure to risk is different depending upon our circumstances, man or animal. I didn't even equate "the poor" to "animals"...that was you. I said humans and other animals are of the same fundamental behavior.

If you believe that humans are essentially superior to "animals" then that is a philosophical difference, not a realistic one based upon the first three levels bottom upwards of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Primary is the need for food, for all species.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

It's easy for the strong to lecture the weak.

I don't know that it's particularly easier than for the weak to lecture the strong. But even if it is, that does not mean the lecture is not correct or well deserved.

sakredkow said...

I don't know that it's particularly easier than for the weak to lecture the strong. But even if it is, that does not mean the lecture is not correct or well deserved.

Respect.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Thanks. Your respect means a lot to me.

Or did you mean something else? Because if so it might help if you were to elaborate.

sakredkow said...

It's easy for the strong to lecture the weak.

@Aridog I don't think of you as someone who would do that. I suppose it was a bad rejoinder on my part.

What I am saying (and to me it's not worth laboring to make the point - you agree or you don't I suppose) is that the topic post crudely compared people on food stamps to animals that can be trained to fend for themselves.

Some of the rebuttals to my comment read to me like "Well, humans ARE technically animals, so there's nothing wrong with that." Which doesn't strike me as much of a rebuttal.

sakredkow said...

Ignorance as Bliss - no, IMO that was a decent counterargument you made. Maybe an excellent counterargument. That's all I meant.

I nailed you for what I thought was a sophistry earlier and you came back and nailed me fairly. You got game.

Maybe that sounds condescending but all I look for from most of you is game. I get a lot more personal attacks so it's notable to me when someone scores against me on a purely intellectual or rational level.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Maybe you would see the rebuttals as somewhat stronger if your realized that we were not making the same crude comparison between animals and the poor, we were making the ( obviously, clearly, objectively ) accurate comparison between animals and people, including ourselves, all of whom will learn based on the incentives offered us.

The only people we were making fun of are the liberals who fail to recognize the obvious.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I get a lot more personal attacks so it's notable to me when someone scores against me on a purely intellectual or rational level.

Do I still get points for the personal attacks too? 'Cause I got a couple of good ones of those in too. I'd hate to think that was wasted effort.

Aridog said...

Phx said...

...the topic post crudely compared people on food stamps to animals that can be trained to fend for themselves.

No, it did not do that. It implied, correctly, that humans and all other animals, can be taught NOT to fend for themselves in normal manners. It is a simple truth. Whether a society wants to support its indigent does not change the simple truth. How they go about it makes a difference.

The issue is whether to encourage indigence or try to relieve it by opportunity, with direct support temporary. It is in that capability that humans rise above the rest...or fail to do so. FDR would agree. Do you?

sakredkow said...

The issue is whether to encourage indigence or try to relieve it by opportunity, with direct support temporary. It is in that capability that humans rise above the rest...or fail to do so. FDR would agree. Do you?

Oh, this is a completely different argument than the original post. And if you don't see that then you aren't thinking at all of difference between what a word or symbol denotes and what it connotes. Which is characteristic, IMO, of the Tribe of the Tin Ear.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

So in other words, even though conservatives don't think the same nasty thoughts as liberals, we are somehow to blame if we say something that triggers those thoughts in people like you?

sakredkow said...

we are somehow to blame

First of all I'm not interested in blame. I'm interested in what works and what doesn't work.

sakredkow said...

even though conservatives don't think the same nasty thoughts as liberals, we are somehow

I thought you were the one bragging about the personal attacks you made, and how they were "good ones"?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

First of all I'm not interested in blame. I'm interested in what works and what doesn't work.

Okay, that does make things clear. Since the context is the Republican's tin ear and the impression the post might leave on vulnerable liberal minds, it's clear that working or not working is in terms of the politics, regardless of the actual effects of the policies on the people involved.

Earlier I asked:

Does it ever make you sad that, in order to be on the winning side of the politics, you have to be on the losing side of logic and reason?

It seems I have your answer.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I thought you were the one bragging about the personal attacks you made, and how they were "good ones"?

I said we didn't think the same nasty thoughts. I never said we didn't have nasty thoughts of our own.

sakredkow said...

Got it.

Aridog said...

Phx said ...

Oh, this is a completely different argument than the original post. And if you don't see that then you aren't thinking at all of difference between what a word or symbol denotes and what it connotes.


You are the one having a semantic breakdown on this subject. The original post clearly does two things. First it denotes animals can made dependent on handouts and lose the innate characteristic of fending for themselves. This is true and can be empirically proven repeatedly.

I quote: "Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent
on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."


Second, the original post denotes that humans can be similarly affected. You, however, connote this is a negative comparison between two dissimilar beings, humans versus animals. In short, that connotation is in your perception, not in the original article. The post was literal" and it is you, and anyone else who does it, who adds connotation to a simple literal statement.

There are no end of studies of humans that show the same modifications to innate behavior in humans based upon adding or taking away motivating features.

B F Skinner made it a career, and I don't even like his work, because it relied on negative stimulus more often than not....e.g., his "positves" were withdrawal of a negative stimulus.

I could go on at length, however, by now no one is reading this thread.

The issue is this: You connotate a negative in something that equates humans and animals. Eye of the beholder.

I do not do that, humans are animals and there is considerable genetic evidence to that effect. Very simply, all animal species are subject to behavioral modification from provision or withdrawal of stimulus.