[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 16 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago
I love how the people that use this infographic like to just ignore the fact that the three individuals in question are all criminals that are trespassing and stealing services (Namely watching the game without paying the ticket price), else they would be up in the stands with the rest of the audience in the background.
[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Where do you get the idea they are on a sidewalk? There's not even a sidewalk visible in that picture! They are clearly standing on grass or boxes on that grass. We have no reason to assume they are on public property. So no, they are quite clearly standing just beyond the outfield fence, which I will note in pretty much any stadium, is still stadium property, and are watching the game without having paid for a ticket. Ergo, trespassing and theft of services.
[–] MedicalMountainGoat 3 points -1 points 2 points (+2|-3) ago (edited ago)
You do know that most baseball stadiums have specially built 'dugouts' where you can go and watch the game for free right?
[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
News to me. And I've been to plenty of baseball stadiums, yet never heard of these "Free View Seats" you speak of. Every stadium I've ever been to requires a purchased ticket to even get past the main gates, much less get anywhere close to the field. Please provide an example of these "Free View Seats/Dugout" you speak of, where they charge for the regular seats, but have an area next to the field where they let people watch a paid game for free, because while I don't want to do so and make a fool of myself upon being rebutted with an actual example, I'm inclined to call bullshit. That sounds counterproductive, at best, and like something that would undermine the business model entirely, at worst.
Edit: Apparently, at least the San Francisco Giants stadium has something similar to what you describe. While it exists, it seems an exception to the rule, though, and hardly qualifying of "most" stadiums. But I will readily concede that the concept exists, in practice.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
[–] TremorAcePV ago (edited ago)
is at all fair
The results are the same. That seems to be what is used to discern what is "fair" in that situation.
[–] ghotioninabarrel 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
In this case the fairness is not fairness of what is given, but fairness of effect.
The first distribution only really benefits the middle guy. The second benefits both the middle guy and the short guy. Switching from the first distribution to the second doesn't hurt the tall guy in any significant way.
That last bit is the really important bit imo. It's why the analogy breaks down when people try to use it to justify quotas etc, because in those cases the benefit to the (assumed) disadvantaged is in fact coming at the expense of the (assumed) advantaged.
The third setup is obviously superior to the other two, it's also the hardest to make happen.
[–] Claudius 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
I'm a man in the ~89.6% height percentile. I'm taller than 99.89% of women. Therefore, I require more food to survive than 99.89% of women. If we're going to start enforcing equity, I should be paid more than almost every woman to accommodate my individual food needs.
[–] Gake_The_Cake 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This is an excellent argument. Most men make more money, but they also spend more on food and water due to biological needs.
[–] Apathy 3 points 0 points 3 points (+3|-3) ago
And how exactly do you remove the barrier when the barrier is a low IQ (different races have different IQ's), ambition, and capability (see men vs women). You can't make people smarter. You can't make them less violent (without castrating them or drugging them, but that's a whole different issue) and you can't force them to become more motivated/inventive/creative. So although the analogy is nice, there are certain barriers that you can't remove.
Moving on to the equality and equity part. Why help others? Because it's nice? Because we should? Okay, but guess what, this is a zero sum game. Meaning that when we pay to help others, we are taking from people who don't require help. Why should person B and C get aid, while person A has to pay for it? How is that fair? How is that "equal"?
True equality would mean everyone gets the same aid, the same privileges, the same everything regardless of gender or race. Unfortunately this will never happen, because we live in a society where we have bullshit like affirmative action trying to make some people more equal than others.
[–] MinorLeakage 5 points 30 points 35 points (+35|-5) ago
It's sort of a bad analogy since they're all apparently free-loaders.
Though I always liked the idea of equitable speeding fines, etc. Say 2% of your last years taxable income, instead of a flat $300 sort of thing. My father couldn't give two shits about getting ticketed, whereas I'm eating pasta for a month if I get caught.
[–] [deleted] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
[–] MinorLeakage ago
It's how taxes and everything else already works. And I'm not suggesting a higher percentage for anybody. Just the same flat % for all.
[–] [deleted] 4 points 19 points 23 points (+23|-4) ago
[–] [deleted] 5 points 11 points 16 points (+16|-5) ago
[–] MinorLeakage ago (edited ago)
Well like you mentioned yourself, higher earners already pay a higher percentage of their income. That is unfair. Everyone should pay the same % tax, in my opinion. However, it should definitely be a % and not a flat $ value.
I'm suggesting the same flat % for everyone, which wouldn't be unfair, unlike income tax. It's not a further punishment, it's the SAME punishment.
The second part you mention, about targeting wealthy areas, actually would be a concern. You would have to find a way to make sure that money wasn't being put in to the police budget, or a politician's budget. But now that you mention it, it's probably already happening. It's probably much more likely a wealthier person would simply pay the fine. And likely a poorer person would do their 30 days in jail instead, thus costing the town/city/state even more $. Though, people in prison justify the need for police, so maybe just middle class folks will be left alone.
Anyways, it was meant to be more a comment on equity than on speeding specifically. Thanks for the reply though!
EDIT: missing word
[–] Gake_The_Cake 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago (edited ago)
The intent of fines is the emotional impact on the person in order to teach someone that what they're doing is wrong. If less than 1% of your income is absorbed by it you won't think twice about it- you'll just do it again. If 50% is taken you feel it desperately.
Your argument is utter bullshit. Fines are not taxes. You might be able to successfully argue that they shouldn't pay higher taxes, but don't be stupid and think for a second that fines are anything similar. They may as well not even fine them if your argument is to be accepted since they don't feel the punishment whatsoever.
Your structure of the argument reveals how incredibly ineffective non-scaling fines actually is since it doesn't even occur to you in your argument that you're not even supposed to be fined whatsoever. EVER. If you are fined for something then you're a horrible fucking person who deserves to struggle for a time. Fines are awarded to CRIMINALS not every rich person should get fined. In fact, in a perfect society, no-one would ever get fined because they're doing the right thing.
If they rich want to avoid paying high fines then maybe they should follow the fucking law like everyone else. This is how you tell you have a corrupt as shit society when the rich just want to go on breaking the law by simply dolling out a "allow me to do more shit" tax.
[–] Had ago
Speeding camera should be illegal to begin with as they do not stop the offense only punish it weeks later. And the fines are meant to be a deterrent. For me $300 sucks but it is not going to hurt really do I don't much care about getting caught speeding. If it were $1500 then I would not speed ever.
I do agree how it would change things though since our government is corrupt. I like the idea in principle, but in reality it would be abused so I think I agree that it should not happen.
[–] WarGy 1 point 4 points 5 points (+5|-1) ago
That's completely ignoring what a speeding fine is though. Speeding fines don't make anyone safer, the only thing they do is provide funding to the local police department. The only thing equitable speeding fines would cause is the police to give more tickets to people in expensive cars to get more money out of them.
[–] AlphaWookie 3 points 2 points 5 points (+5|-3) ago
Wrong, insurance companies study this you know because they have to pay up for accidents speeding fines reduce the overall number of traffic accidents, the severity of traffic accidents, and the number of fatalities from traffic accidents. So stop pulling shit out of your ass and come with sources next time faggot.
Source: https://economics.missouri.edu/working-papers/2011/wp1117_leedn.pdf
[–] MedicalMountainGoat 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Fuck that. 2% would be a ludicrous fine to pay for speeding these days, especially while speed limits are artificially lowered to ridiculous levels. The whole thing has become a racket to steal money from the people.
[–] MinorLeakage ago
Yeah I generally agree with you, I was just using speeding as an example.