The Big Picture: In Defense of Nostalgia

[DearFilm]

I feel like - in the instance of at least one of Bob's final comments - he mixed up "nostalgia" with "personal morality."

 

[Atmos Duality]

Dammit Bob, why did you have to throw Turner D Century into the mix...why?

 

[KushinLos]

Apparently not just the United States: http://satwcomic.com/world-view

 

[Clonekiller]

I am getting tired of the gay marriage thing being dredged up over and over again whenever someone wants to show how liberal they are. I agree that the majority of people who oppose gay marriage generally do so for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't make it right. If you're right for the wrong reasons, you're still right.

But I'm not willing to even discuss why they might be right with people who are so bent on being "forward thinking" that they can't consider that maybe, just maybe, the ignorant, scared, slavering masses might be right about this one.

I'm honestly really curious now. Why is it even potentially right to deny someone else the same rights you enjoy?

Honestly, I couldn't care less for gay marriage, but I've never heard an argument against it that was any stronger than "God said so!", and that's simply not a compelling reason. I'd like your take on it, since you clearly disagree.

Here's an interesting thought. The homosexual movement has been offered a marriage equivalent alternative on many occasions, mainly in the interest of compromise. (Compromise: when two groups got some of, but not all, of what they want in order to reach an agreement) Oddly enough, the homosexual community has been the greatest voice of opposition to this proposal. Why?

As a theoretical answer, I would say it is because marriage is mainly a religious thing. If a state-recognized union was all they were after, the compromise option should have been easily accepted by the homosexual movement. However, if said homosexual movement were to be awarded the right to "marriage", that would mean that their right to marriage would be protected as a civil right. As a result, if any religious group were to reject the sanctioning of a marriage based on sexuality, that Church/Temple/Mosque would fore fit its tax exempt status. And since Churches and Mosques only gain income based on the generosity of the congregation, said religious building would either have to majorly scale back, charge admission, or close altogether. (Religious buildings are freaking expensive to maintain)

And thus, now we have a new question. Should a religious group be able to object to a sexual orientation because they believe it's wrong, or do we say "religious groups shouldn't have that right" and award the homosexuals marriage rights. In a nutshell, do we give homosexuals what they want & take away some of the rights of the religious groups, or do we ignore the rights of the homosexual. (Since the homosexuals don't want a compromise, that's not really an option at this point.) Suddenly, this whole argument got a lot more complicated.

 

[Aurini]

You're going to be called a racist evil bigot by this forum, you realize. But yeah, I agree with almost everything.

To liberals: "White guilt" and other forms of liberal "progressive" ideas designed to "help others" is just you saying that you want to feel good by using other peoples' money. That's not compassion, that's the smug belief that the universe revolves around you. Compassion is SELF SACRIFICE for the greater good. Doing it yourself. Be the change you want to see in the world, and put some skin in the game. Maybe then, you'll learn that work is hard, time is money, and other things adults learn.

I consider myself a failure, if a Liberal isn't calling me a racist nazi. >D

It's funny, there's a distinct flavour of sociopathy to that progressive/communist ethic: you're supposed to value these abstract values such as 'humanity' and 'charity' and 'environmentalism', all of which are ill defined (and are a clear mutuation of Christian memes of self-hatred, and self-flagellation) - but when it comes to your individual life, are values are thrown out the window. Live life however you want - get divorced if you *feel* like it, no judgment on your sexual mores, you deserve X and have the right to take it from others.

The one side props up their self-esteem by affirming what great, moral people they are (not selfish like the middle-america capitalist, trying to earn a living), while simultaneously freeing them of all responsibility - *society* is the responsible one, who must pay for everyone else's screw-ups. As for individuals, you've got no right to judge.

And the occasional Weiner gets thrown up as a scape goat, to be burned for society's ills.

 

[daxterx2005]

wait, there is a He-Man Movie coming out...?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I can see where you are coming from as well.

But the thing is: when a political proposes any plan, one of the first questions is "How do we pay for it?"

I'm merrly asking for the same to be applied to this issue.

And again, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SHOW ME A WAY IT WILL BE PAID FOR. That's it

Legalizing Marijuana. That's it

What I am saying is letting one group of people do something for free and charging another group smack of "Whites Bathroom", "Coloreds Bathroom" to me. Not that I'm implying you're a racist.

I just think that Straights should be just as responsible for the financial burden that comes with this institution as Gays. Especially considering that they were there first and are WHOLLY responsible for the joke it is today.

Sorry, but legal pot just doesn't cut it

Think about the costs that come along with that as well. If we legalize and tax it, we have to pay a government agency to regulate THC levels. And then we have to pay in order to enforce that.

To quote Cracked on the topic

This one seems to be the dominant argument ever since the economy went to shit. "Legalize it and tax it! With all the money we'll save from enforcement and all the tax money we'll take in, it'll balance the budget!" And no, I'm not exaggerating the claims -- here's one of the more articulate articles that literally says marijuana would "save the economy."
He cites some pretty big numbers. "Full legalization would bring in [...] $6.2bn annually if it were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco." Man, that's a lot! But when you put that up beside the total taxes collected in 2010 ($2.1 trillion) and the current national debt ($14.4 trillion), the dent it makes is comparable to trying to change the orbit of the Sun by shooting it with your BB gun.

There's no doubt that legalization would create some jobs and bring in some tax revenue. But it's a drop in the bucket, and when you start presenting that drop with titles like (as in the wake of the Prop 19 legalization movement in California last year) "Save California: Legalize Marijuana" and "To Save California, Legalize Pot", it makes it sound like you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. In fact, it makes it sound like a bunch of young stoners making shit up, and that gives opponents an excuse to dismiss everything else you're saying.

It's the same when the advocates say that we'd be able to "fix the budget" by eliminating the cost of marijuana-related law enforcement, based on this insane idea that once the drug is legal, we'd no longer need any of that. As if the country would suddenly turn into a free-for-all, grow-your-own, weedathon where there are no regulations or restrictions on its production, and yet everyone would just volunteer to report and pay the $50 per ounce tax out of a sense of civic duty. Why? Because people prefer to do things the legal way? That's true... because they fear going to jail. Which means you still fucking have to pay for cops to investigate and arrest people who use unauthorized pot.

This is what opponents were trying to explain during the California legalization debate, that you're going to need a shitload of new regulations to figure out just exactly what activity you're legalizing, and what happens to the people who violate the new laws. Do you get the FDA involved in regulating the THC content? So then you need somebody enforcing those regulations, right? And to go after the stronger, black market stuff? Then we'd still have DUI arrests to deal with, and figuring out what weed does to your health insurance premiums, etc.

In other words, it would just about pay for itself. Not another issue.

ok I will break it down for you since you are either trolling or thick.

Neither, dear reader. But nice Ad hominem

We will not pay for it, we will accept the loss as getting a small amount of money is not an excuse for denying civil right to people.

Uhhhh, again, where does this loss come from?

What I said in my previous argument is that slave owners might have used monetary loss as an excuse not to end slavery and I say that is a bull shit argument which is even more bullshit in this situation because the people making the argument dont even care about the money their just using the argument as a mean to an end.

And you were trying to link the truth of an argument to the kind of people who used it before. That... doesn't exactally work. It distills actual discussion to political "He said, she said"

I could do just the same to what you are saying as well. But I won't because it's wrong.

 

[Varya]

Honestly, I couldn't care less for gay marriage, but I've never heard an argument against it that was any stronger than "God said so!", and that's simply not a compelling reason. I'd like your take on it, since you clearly disagree.

Actually, I've heard a secular argument:

Money. If we allow more people to get married, that means more people will get devorced, which takes up the courts time and money. And that also means that if they file together, they pay less in taxes. So we are left with a net loss.

Which means we either cut spending, raise taxes, or both.

The former is not popular with those on the left, and the second is not popular to the right.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. It just is fully non-God based.

Well, regardless if you agree or not, it's a bloody lousy argument. Yes, it'd cost money, but if you are gonna exclude people from marriage because of the cost of the divorce, you should A)work do de-legalize marriage as a whole, or B)make sure the people that are getting the divorce are paying for their costs, or C) base the discrimination on marriage rights on people more likely to divorce.
You can't say "Ok, we can have SOME marriages, but we can't afford more than X so these groups are not allowed to"
That is not an argument against gay marriage, that is an argument against marriage.

You're missing the point of the argument, dear reader

You, I assume, favor gay marriage

Allrighty then, how do you pay for it?

With the same money as straight marriage.
I think you are missing the point. Just because some people already have a right, it does not mean, when you revisit that law, that they should be given privileges. If we agree that Gays and straight are of equal worth, they should, from the moment you agree to this, have equal rights. Otherwise, you are discriminating. It's that easy.
OK, some more concrete examples.
"Well, it's not that black people aren't equal, we're just gonna keep 'em slaves because of money reasons. The white were free first, so they're of course still free men"
"Well we WOULD let you vote, but we can't afford more paper, so you women just go back to the kitchen"
Yes, they are more extreme, but in the end, you let discrimination be about money, you are just haggling over the price

 

[Hitchmeister]

Is it okay to be nostalgic for the good old MovieBob I first started watching on The Escapist rather than the over-opinionated, self-important blowhard who seems to have taken over these past few months? Or is just rose-colored glasses and he was never that good?

Okay, I'm exaggerating. I don't always agree with with what Bob says, but I'm entertained more often than not and still keep watching.

 

[John the Gamer]

That picture in the title screen reminded me of this parody by Harry Partridge;

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Honestly, I couldn't care less for gay marriage, but I've never heard an argument against it that was any stronger than "God said so!", and that's simply not a compelling reason. I'd like your take on it, since you clearly disagree.

Actually, I've heard a secular argument:

Money. If we allow more people to get married, that means more people will get devorced, which takes up the courts time and money. And that also means that if they file together, they pay less in taxes. So we are left with a net loss.

Which means we either cut spending, raise taxes, or both.

The former is not popular with those on the left, and the second is not popular to the right.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. It just is fully non-God based.

Well, regardless if you agree or not, it's a bloody lousy argument. Yes, it'd cost money, but if you are gonna exclude people from marriage because of the cost of the divorce, you should A)work do de-legalize marriage as a whole, or B)make sure the people that are getting the divorce are paying for their costs, or C) base the discrimination on marriage rights on people more likely to divorce.
You can't say "Ok, we can have SOME marriages, but we can't afford more than X so these groups are not allowed to"
That is not an argument against gay marriage, that is an argument against marriage.

You're missing the point of the argument, dear reader

You, I assume, favor gay marriage

Allrighty then, how do you pay for it?

With the same money as straight marriage.
I think you are missing the point. Just because some people already have a right, it does not mean, when you revisit that law, that they should be given privileges. If we agree that Gays and straight are of equal worth, they should, from the moment you agree to this, have equal rights. Otherwise, you are discriminating. It's that easy.
OK, some more concrete examples.
"Well, it's not that black people aren't equal, we're just gonna keep 'em slaves because of money reasons. The white were free first, so they're of course still free men"
"Well we WOULD let you vote, but we can't afford more paper, so you women just go back to the kitchen"
Yes, they are more extreme, but in the end, you let discrimination be about money, you are just haggling over the price

I should firstly state that I align myself with neither side on this issue. Both are full of self-righteous pricks who can't see past their own bias

The reason I posted this argument was that a person stated they've never heard any argument that wasn't God-Based

I admit, it is a weak argument. I don't fully subscribe to it. I'm mearly playing the devils advocate.

Hell, I've even stated the best way to retort it. Tell me how it can be paid for.

But really, I don't care much about this issue either way.

 

[Callate]

I really find it odd that every time an political opinion is given in The United States of America it's always Republican or Democrat. We have So many damn political movements it's just freaky I think we have 7 and that for a country with just 17 million people.

Believe me, a lot of us find it weird here, too. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that while the Democratic and Republican parties may be at each other's throats on most issues (especially in the current climate), they're remarkably united on the matter of keeping any other group resembling an organized political party marginalized.

Actually, I've heard a secular argument:

Money. If we allow more people to get married, that means more people will get devorced, which takes up the courts time and money. And that also means that if they file together, they pay less in taxes. So we are left with a net loss.

Which means we either cut spending, raise taxes, or both.

The former is not popular with those on the left, and the second is not popular to the right.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. It just is fully non-God based.

With the recognition that the argument isn't necessarily "yours", it has to be pointed out that weddings add enormous amounts of money to the economy, married couples are more likely to purchase and hold onto houses, and married couples are more likely to have children (a whole industry on its own.)

That's the problem with left-wing people. They always think that their political viewpoint is "intellectual" or "progressive", and everybody that doesn't agree with them are "old-fashioned" and "ignorant". Just like it's wrong write off all remakes of old movies, it's wrong to write off people with different political opinions than yours.

No, no it isn't.

It's wrong to write them off without reason. My country is increasingly warm to the idea that the only way to find the "right" course of action is to present both sides with equal time, and at the risk of being called some snobbish intellectual (because, y'know, it's awful when people are smart and study things) that's fucking idiotic.

If one side feels that, say, Asian-Americans have made many notable and worthy contributions to America, while the other side feels that Asian-Americans should be rendered into tallow to make long-burning candles, I rather feel that having to give the latter side their say just because it's "different" is ridiculous.

We shouldn't write off other points of view without reason, certainly. Whether the instigators are "intellectual" and "progressive" and the detractors are "old-fashioned" and "ignorant"... Or the instigators are "patriotic" and "common-sense" and the detractors are "socialists" and "anti-American".

 

[Avatar Roku]

im sure the people whom defended slavery made a similar argument. Although the scope of the problem is different that argument was wrong then and is wrong now.

You're trying to link the truth of a claim to others who may have said it in a less reputible issue. Hyperbole much?

But if we are to engage in this, need I remind you that Hitler ate sugar? [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar]

Honestly, I couldn't care less for gay marriage, but I've never heard an argument against it that was any stronger than "God said so!", and that's simply not a compelling reason. I'd like your take on it, since you clearly disagree.

Actually, I've heard a secular argument:

Money. If we allow more people to get married, that means more people will get devorced, which takes up the courts time and money. And that also means that if they file together, they pay less in taxes. So we are left with a net loss.

Which means we either cut spending, raise taxes, or both.

The former is not popular with those on the left, and the second is not popular to the right.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. It just is fully non-God based.

Well, regardless if you agree or not, it's a bloody lousy argument. Yes, it'd cost money, but if you are gonna exclude people from marriage because of the cost of the divorce, you should A)work do de-legalize marriage as a whole, or B)make sure the people that are getting the divorce are paying for their costs, or C) base the discrimination on marriage rights on people more likely to divorce.
You can't say "Ok, we can have SOME marriages, but we can't afford more than X so these groups are not allowed to"
That is not an argument against gay marriage, that is an argument against marriage.

You're missing the point of the argument, dear reader

You, I assume, favor gay marriage

Allrighty then, how do you pay for it?

I think that's a bit of a weird argument. Are you saying some people shouldn't have basic rights because they have the same chance as Straight Couples to get divorced?

"Sorry, but we were here first and we don't need anyone else getting divorced right now."

In all honesty I would trust gay people to stay together more than straights: They already committed to an "alternate" lifestyle. Most "Middle Americans" treat the institution of marriage with so little respect that they deserve it less!

My parents have married in the double digits, combined. That includes getting divorced. Wouldn't it be more fair to put a Marriage cap on so every Cletus, Bob and Bob Jr. can't keep costing us money?

Also, wouldn't having more family units benefit our economy? When you marry, that's a lot of money being pumped back into the economy. (Cakes, invitation, etc.)

You're missing the point, just slightly

You can get rid of this argument by presenting a way to make up for the shortfall in tax collection it would cause. That's all you have to do.

Look, I see what you're saying, but considering that some people are arbitrarily being denied civil rights, shouldn't we just look at this and say "Ok, we can take this hit, this is important"?

Don't misunderstand me, money and budget balancing and such are important, but you can't be paralytically afraid of giving up ANY money, especially when something important comes up.

I can see where you are coming from as well.

But the thing is: when a political proposes any plan, one of the first questions is "How do we pay for it?"

I'm merrly asking for the same to be applied to this issue.

And again, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SHOW ME A WAY IT WILL BE PAID FOR. That's it

I'm not qualified to say where the money comes from. I freely admit that. Deciding that is the job of the lawmakers. But it does not make gay marriage invalid as an option that I, personally, can not say where the money will come from.

 

[seiler88]

I agree with the geek stuff Bob. It's not important.

I wish you hadn't brought up the political stuff though.

Last time I looked at people like Beck he was talking more about government being to big and taxes being to high. I agree with those positions.

It seems that the political Right has started to move away from pushing morals and lined itself up with pushing an economic position. This is a good change because I see more Right wingers realize that the 50s were a bit of an anomaly, socially speaking.

Now if this has changed lately and I've missed it (considering that my TV access is sporatic right now that's pretty likely) then disregard the above.

 

[Agayek]

I have no idea what this Oregon Trail is so I find it hard to call it a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_%28video_game%29

It's a video game from 1971 about the pioneer expansion into the American West. The basic premise is that you are trying to cross the Oregon Trail, which was a road/route/trail between Missouri and Oregon. It's primarily used as an educational tool in US schools for teaching about westward expansion and pioneers.

The downside is, unless you play a doctor, 50+% of the people you bring with you on the trail are going to die of dysentery. It's very silly and it's a quasi-common joke in the States.

 

[cymonsgames]

In fact, I was refraining from calling you all sorts of names....

Well thank you for pointing out how big you were. I'm sure we all appreciate it.

It's important because any couple should have the same rights as any other couple. Anything other is discrimination.

I apologize for where this has gone. I'm gonna throw Varya here a bone so there'll be no more assumptions about what I haven't said. You asked for it so don't TLR this.

Would it surprise you if I said that I agree with you? I still think your expression of the idea is a bit rough but I agree that there are rights that any couple should have. Like property rights or visitation rights. All sorts of rights that are defaulted to marriage in our modern society I feel should be identified, separated from the idea of marriage, and any couple should be able to sue or apply for. This I'm in support of.

But you're calling marriage a right and, this may be a bit semantic, but it's not. It's an institution, a social union, a legal contractual agreement. Now there is arguably a right to be married but why fight for the right to take a legal obligation when all you really want is the right to visit a loved one in the hospital or the right to a portion of the property of someone who you've cohabited with for years in case of death?

Do some research on the history of marriage. Find out what anthropologists have discovered. Find out what marriage is, where it came from, why it exists. Then stop trying to give same sex couples something that doesn't apply to them and start fighting for the rights that they should have.

 

[VanillaBean]

Great episode Bob without a doubt one of your best.