To those who think agricultural subsidies are a bad thing:

The BBQ Pit
81

Maeglin: Your entire comprehension of my post was just plain wrong.

If you’ll point out to me where I said she WASN’T being insulting or heavy handed I’d appreciated it.

What I DID in fact say was that people like Collounsbury were being big babies by attacking someone who in their grief lashed out. In otherwords sometimes it’s ok to set aside the intellectual pretension and accept that someone is having a real problem that justifies not having the most calm response. YMMV on this one.

Ahh, but the nasty vitriolic personal insults back because she may have hurt their poor little feelings, are justifiable? Fine you want to defend these elitist kindergartners, go ahead. Chique’s OP may not have been the most diplomatic way to say things, but I hardly think that justifies comments like “Get a job and support your own hobbies”.

People say nasty things when they are hurt, and I’m sorry to hurt people’s logical brains but sometimes mental and physical hurt ARE justifications to act distraught or even downright irrational.

How you determine that is up to you. If you think Collounsbury and his peers were reasonable in their vitriolic response to a slight attack on their persona, then that’s fine. I just think they are assholes.

If when my uncle died of cancer and I came online blaming it on Agent Orange and posted a diatribe about certain people in our country enabling a government to do that to him, I seriously doubt I would have gotten the same vitriolic anger. What she’s going through is a very serious issue for her and her family, and I think pointing out that people in the third world have it worse is just plain low-class.

So I guess that’s my problem, these people chose a really bad to point out once again how little class they have.

As I pointed out before, there were MANY posts that pointed out where they felt that Chique was in error, without being nasty and bitter that she called libertarians a bad name. It just amazes me that someone as smart and educated as Collounsbury can have such a low self-esteem about their knowledge that when someone even vaguely attacks part of their identity they feel so threatened that they must attempt to hurt that person.

Erek

82

Maeglin: Your entire comprehension of my post was just plain wrong.

If you’ll point out to me where I said she WASN’T being insulting or heavy handed I’d appreciated it.

What I DID in fact say was that people like Collounsbury were being big babies by attacking someone who in their grief lashed out. In otherwords sometimes it’s ok to set aside the intellectual pretension and accept that someone is having a real problem that justifies not having the most calm response. YMMV on this one.

Ahh, but the nasty vitriolic personal insults back because she may have hurt their poor little feelings, are justifiable? Fine you want to defend these elitist kindergartners, go ahead. Chique’s OP may not have been the most diplomatic way to say things, but I hardly think that justifies comments like “Get a job and support your own hobbies”.

People say nasty things when they are hurt, and I’m sorry to hurt people’s logical brains but sometimes mental and physical hurt ARE justifications to act distraught or even downright irrational.

How you determine that is up to you. If you think Collounsbury and his peers were reasonable in their vitriolic response to a slight attack on their persona, then that’s fine. I just think they are assholes.

If when my uncle died of cancer and I came online blaming it on Agent Orange and posted a diatribe about certain people in our country enabling a government to do that to him, I seriously doubt I would have gotten the same vitriolic anger. What she’s going through is a very serious issue for her and her family, and I think pointing out that people in the third world have it worse is just plain low-class.

So I guess that’s my problem, these people chose a really bad tijme to point out once again how little class they have.

As I pointed out before, there were MANY posts that pointed out where they felt that Chique was in error, without being nasty and bitter that she called libertarians a bad name. It just amazes me that someone as smart and educated as Collounsbury can have such a low self-esteem about their knowledge that when someone even vaguely attacks part of their identity they feel so threatened that they must attempt to hurt that person.

Erek

83

ah dammit, it kept telling me it couldn’t be displayed so I thought it didn’t post. GODDAMMIT CHICAGO READER PUT UP ONE FUCKING BANNER AD AND UPGRADE YOUR SYSTEMS!

That’s all.

Erek

84

<shrugs>

I understood your post the first time. You think that the overeducated kindergartners or some such should grin and bear it when insulted, but that chique doesn’t have to. Fine, agree to disagree. I’m not trying to defend anyone; certainly no one needs it.

I just cannot muster a whole lot of sympathy for someone who finally makes the life-changing discovery that 2+2 does not in fact equal 5 and must actually make drastic life changes accordingly.

Sucks to be in her shoes, of course. But regardless of how crappy her personal situation is, the facts do not change. A little perspective always helps.

How about pointing out how consumers take it in the ass on farm subsidies to keep a few farmers rich? Is that low class? Sounds a little too close to an old dixiecrat complaining about his loss of skin and dick privileges. Times change. Happens to all of us.

But don’t expect to get away with insulting people who actually know the sum of 2+2. Do that and you deserve what you get.

YMMV.

85

Maeg: Hmm, I guess agreeing to disagree is going to be necessary on this one, because when the Detroit Autoworkers were put out of business, I don’t think telling them tough shit would be reasonable. When flaws in the system fuck people like the employees of Enron, no one says tough shit. Chique’s family was utilizing the system as it was established and then a change in that system screwed her and her family over.

I’ve seen people scream out and lash out at their closest friends when their family members died, as though their friends had anything to do with their deaths, and no one said “Tough shit, wake up to the reality that people die”. Life is can deal people a shitty hand, just because that hand was dealt logically doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to kick someone when they are down just because they called you a few names.

My feeling on it is that everyone is being very cold, and getting all ivory tower on her, and it shows a lack of maturity, or at the very least extreme insecurity. I know the pit is based around being immature, but I do think there is a level of behavior that should be expected of us as rational thinking adults. In otherwords I think this is a much different case from me saying, “You stupid SUV environment wrecker, you deserve to have your SUV roll over.”, and getting flamed for it. In society there are some cases where acting uncouth should allow for people to turn the other cheek.

That is the essence of a mature civilization, we pick up the slack for our tribe members when the chips are down for them. In this case, it is so little slack to pick up that I’m disgusted by some people’s lack of caring to do so.

You may not feel that having your entire way of life uprooted in a short span of time is a big deal, but it seems like a big enough deal to me that it warrants some name calling. Now you may believe that name calling warrants name calling, but I believe in situational ethics. In otherwords me standing in your face and calling you names is a lot different from me calling you names from the dirt.

Anyway, I can sum it up by saying, “you people are just being cold.”, if you feel they are justified, that’s fine. I think they should be more mature about it.

Erek

86

I, for one, am truly sorry about what has happened to chique and her family business. I hope things will get better very soon chique.

87

Chique, hang in there. Sorry about your situation. Lots have lashed out at you (and at the farm subsidies), but I don’t think anyone really understands the whole thing. I think spoke came closest to my idea. My hope is for the best for you and your parents.

Funny, I don’t even like milk, except chocolate.
{{{chique}}}

:slight_smile:

88

mswas, I think we are combining two issues. The first is personal sympathy for chique. She is my friend, so yes, of course I am terribly sorry that her family is entering hard times. On a more personal level, of course.

The second issue, of course, is with respect to farm subsidies. They are an unquestionably bad thing. A dozen senators whose states’ total populations are less than that of New York City are costing American taxpayers billions of dollars a year in the costs of the subsidies, higher prices for agricultural goods. and foreign aid to the third world countries whose markets we restrict by means of unfair trade practices. The size and power of the farming bloc in the senate is entirely disprortionate to the populations they represent.

Thus I think one can be sympathetic personally and cold at the same time. My heart goes out to chique and her family, and it stinks that they are a casualty in what is essentially a Very Good Thing for America.

Hell, if I lived forty years ago and a deep Southern friend of mine was complaining about the decreasing quality of education due to desegregation, I would probably feel a little badly that his kid’s not getting the education his parents think he deserves, but I would still argue vehemently for desegregation. You make changes for the better, there are casualties. Sucks when it happens to friends, but a lot of times it just has to happen.

When the Detroit autoworkers were put out of business, the auto industry reorganized drastically. Lo and behold, they are now producing better cars at lower prices. Sucks to be one of the workers, of course, especially since the auto industry is in many ways a barometer of our economy. But there are consequences to poor business decisions, and that really is the bottom line.

As for Enron, that is rather a different issue. It was a huge mistake for employees to invest all of their money back into the company, though I am aware that Enron had certain restrictions on how employees could use this money. The employees were not victims of inefficient business or poor policy, but outright lying, stealing, and betrayal. I don’t honestly see how this relates either to farm subsidies at all, unless you consider them a betrayal of our commitment to free trade and to bringing up the quality of life in the third world.

I think this is a little different. This isn’t crying to friends, this is a general rant in an extremely public place insulting everyone who believes in perhaps the least-disputed economic principles around. It is the equivalent to a person standing on the street and hurling abuse at anyone, say, driving and SUV.

Using your situational ethics, how would you respond?

89

How would I respond, did I not know Chique?

I would probably respond:

I don’t know much about farm subsidies but I am against welfare for businesses as a rule.

However I am sorry that you are having a problem and it affects you like this.

My argument was NEVER against people voicing their opinion in opposition to hers. My problem was with people like Collounsbury who felt so personally attacked that they needed to be MEAN about it.

Appropriate:
I’m sorry about your situation, but I have to disagree with you.
I’m sorry about that but I live in a third world country and for you to survive and thrive I must languish so I can’t be sympathetic in general.

Inappropriate:
Support your own fucking hobbies.

The Enron comparison is a stretch, and I realized that in posting it, however, let me see if I can explain it a little better, because it makes SOME sense in my head. It goes like this.

The government created an artificial market that farmers depend upon. It created artificial prices that without the subsidies small farmers couldn’t possibly survive. And it SEEMS to me, that it just cut certain people off, rather than weening them off or saying “We are going to continue giving you money for X amount of time, change your business model because you WILL be cut off.” In otherwords they created a dependency and then just cut it off. So Chique’s farm going out of business is no more a function of the free market than it was when she was actually GETTING subsidies.

I would probably be supportive of grants to help farmers change to a new business model. However I do think subsidies that keep them in an irrelevant business are inappropriate. I’m not going to even address the issue of corporate dairy’s because that’s another sad issue that I just have no solution in mind for.

In otherwords, my point in this issue is just a matter of class, nothing else. I think Collounsbury and his henchmen are are classless scumbags in this thread. I never once said they were wrong.

Erek

90

I appreciate your offer of starting a thread in GD, but I won’t participate in it. As I said previously, it’s a waste of time to argue about politics. While I do have my own ideas and opinions on what could or should be done, I would rather discuss them with people who are closer to agriculture. While those people usually don’t agree with me, they’re aware family farming isn’t a “hobby”.

I think what I think, and you vice versa, and no matter what is said we will disagree. Ergo the rant :slight_smile:

91

Argentina was doing pretty well for quite a while with farm subsidies and tarrifs in place in the US. From my limited understanding of economics I thought most of Argentina’s problems were from gross government missmagement followed by a cut off of foreign capitol tied to inability to make debt repayments. Then there was the huge restructuring of most of the key industries.

And it’s papa bush.

Osama Bin O’Neill :slight_smile: Almost ironic.

So you are making 10 times as much food as you are consuming, and aren’t able to export the extra. Causing a supply glut in your local economies…

You’ve never checked out the statistics for heavy manufacturing in the US have you.

Gee, a member of a ‘very rich’ family has the resources to start over.

Somehow I feel very little sympath for people like that and more for the small families who have been over the last few decades slowly loosing everything while they try to save their farms. Here’s a little bit of free economics advice: When you loose everything you own because the bank forclosed on your farm, you don’t have the money to start over again.

And to the rest of you, fuck you. You could have offered your sympathies but you had to turn in into a farm subsidy pile on.
Chique: Hopefully things will work out.