report this user
Jul 8, 2010 discordia commented on You Want To Save Some "Serious Money," Lady?.
@34 I agree that we need taxes to make our way of life possible, but I don't agree that regressive taxes on consumer goods, even unhealthy, luxury goods, is the best way to pay for things. It's not about whether or not it's an encroachment on freedom, it's about whether it's fair and/or financially sound. Let's say a soda tax does what it is supposed to and makes people buy less soda- then you have less tax money to pay for the things we need. Meanwhile, farm subsidies primarily go to incredibly wealthy tax cheats.

If we end subsidies on things like corn, soy, and water monopolies, the price of junk food, along with many other luxuries, will self-correct and there will be more tax dollars available for necessities like schools and roads, and we will actually have reduced the complexity of the tax code.
Jul 8, 2010 discordia commented on So What You're Saying Is That No One Should Be Monogamous?.
First, Dan, while I get that what you meant to say was that monogamy isn't easy for most people, you did actually say that "anyone who's made a monogamous commitment is struggling with monogamy," and that simply isn't true.

Second, I think a lot of people here on both sides of the debate seem to be under the mistaken impression that monogamy means everlasting, continuous monogamy. Some people have pointed out that serial monogamy is a common occurrence, and I would like to add to that that if a couple is monogamous for a while and then decides not to be monogamous, that doesn't mean that they never were monogamous or that monogamy was always a struggle for them. My husband and I are still in the honeymoon phase of our marriage, and at the moment neither of us has eyes for anyone else. Monogamy is totally easy at this point because we are infatuated with each other. Down the road it might become harder, we might decide to have an open relationship, one of us might cheat, etc, but none of that would nullify our current monogamy or the fact that it is currently easy. None of that would mean that choosing monogamy at this point in our lives was wrong, or that we simply aren't capable of monogamy. And if then, after years of non-monogamy, perhaps after age and children had changed what we wanted/expected from sex and relationships, we chose to be monogamous again, that wouldn't mean that choosing non-monogamy was wrong or that monogamy would never work for us after experiencing non-monogamy.

I think what frustrates me is that everyone seems to be painting it as "some people are monogamous types, some aren't," whereas I think it is more complicated than that. A person can be very willingly, happily monogamous at some times, and not at others. I don't think either is so much about a person's fundamental nature as about the particulars of who they are at any given time/place/relationship. We need to get rid of this "us and them" mentality and just embrace people knowing who they are and what they want and pursuing what makes them happy, but also being capable of change and growth.
Jul 5, 2010 discordia answered a bunch of weird questions about himself or herself.
Jul 5, 2010 discordia joined My Stranger Face
Jul 5, 2010 discordia commented on You Want To Save Some "Serious Money," Lady?.
Something you people for the tax don't seem to understand- corn subsidies are paid for with...wait for it...your tax dollars! Whether you buy soda or not, you already pay taxes to make it cheaper. Taxing the soda means using tax dollars to make something more expensive that is only cheap because of tax dollars. If you end the subsidy, soda will start to cost more, but only the people who buy soda will pay for it, and maybe they will start making drinks with cane sugar, which is still bad but not AS bad as HFCS, which is possibly one of the most deadly things Americans eat.