[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

One of your oft-critics actually gave me some advice on how to avoid this...Not meaning to speak for him but he actually respects your (and others) views more than you might think or read in his criticisms.

Please say it was Abe!! Oh please oh please oh please??

Please?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Making inflammatory statements that would require a whole other discussion to address really doesn't advance this discussion, just in case this hadn't occurred to you.

I think turtle might be venting some frustration on a perceived irony/hypocrisy. Though I tend to agree with him whole-heartedly I am willing to discuss this issue by itself.

I completely understand his position as well as yours, and I don't think is intent was to be inflammatory. I'm not trying to play parent or mediator here but I think that we can continue a meaningful and relevant conversation if we're a little more willing to understand each other's views and not be so quick to be defensive. I'm not calling you out cuz we are all guilty of it, but this might be a good place for turtle to continue to stick to his points (he's making very good arguments IMO) and perhaps for you to be a little more forgiving of perceived low-blows to your political ideologies, as you're bringing up great points for us all to think about and address, no matter which hand we use to sooth our political yearnings.

[/derail]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm all for educating people on the risks of things. Infact, thats what I would say is good for these kids. Put a warning label on student credit cards-Warning: Overuse may cause severe debt and disownership from parents.

Would legalizing crystal meth and putting a warning label on it have an impact? There are times when people's needs and desires outweigh the risks no matter how much education takes place. I'm not sure that credit has any sort of addictive quality, although perhaps to some it might. Still, there are still going to be people that spend way beyond their means no matter what warning there is. Then what? Turtle suggests that the person just works their ass off and learns the lesson, and maybe that is right, but one should never overestimate people.

I'm sure that there would be plenty of whining if we knew that we had to support these people with welfare and whatever other forms of support are needed (including being unable to pay for their health care, turning to crime, etc.)

[ort888]

So why can't I run an oral sex booth on my front lawn again?

Nanny state?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think turtle might be venting some frustration on a perceived irony/hypocrisy. Though I tend to agree with him whole-heartedly I am willing to discuss this issue by itself.

I completely understand his position as well as yours, and I don't think is intent was to be inflammatory. I'm not trying to play parent or mediator here but I think that we can continue a meaningful and relevant conversation if we're a little more willing to understand each other's views and not be so quick to be defensive. I'm not calling you out cuz we are all guilty of it, but this might be a good place for turtle to continue to stick to his points (he's making very good arguments IMO) and perhaps for you to be a little more forgiving of perceived low-blows to your political ideologies, as you're bringing up great points for us all to think about and address, no matter which hand we use to sooth our political yearnings.

[/derail]

I'm not perceiving low blows at my ideology because I frankly don't think he understands or can articulate what it is (the same can be said for many others).

There are two problems here:

1) Some people don't want to recognize any sort of legitimacy whatsoever to positions other than their own

2) Like you said, some people don't understand other people's views and could not state them plainly and accurately without editorializing them or spinning them. Instead, they'd rather just keep repeating their own positions and expend the energy convincing you that they are right


In light of these two factors, during my one week vacation I came to realize that trying to coax out productive conversation is literally pointless while this is happening. I'm probably not going to want to bother until I see that there is an interest in breaking these barriers. I love Turtle, he's an awesome guy and I even met him in person, but I'm not sure he really wants to satisfy me.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha...

Ingredients, nutritional facts, and quality assurance labels are to help consumers make a informed decision.

Warning labels are to protect consumers from doing stupid things to themselves like do not use hairdryer while taking a bath.

Right...and this is an easy question...yes or no

Is there a law saying, given that warning label, I can't partake in said activity? Its yes or no and the answer is very important to the issue at hand.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Right...and is there a law or government intervention saying I can't use a hairdryer while taking a bubble bath? No. The warning label is to provide you with a brief education about your pending choice. It does not prevent you from doing that activity, nor is there a regulation or law against it.

I'm all for educating people on the risks of things. Infact, thats what I would say is good for these kids. Put a warning label on student credit cards-Warning: Overuse may cause severe debt and disownership from parents.

My argument is that the government have laws to protect stupid people from doing stupid things.

I didn't say government should make it against the law to be stupid.

If we are jailing people for doing stupid things, there would be very few Americans not in jail.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Warning labels are to protect consumers from doing stupid things to themselves like do not use hairdryer while taking a bath.

I think we can all agree on the fact that 95% of the warning labels in the US are absolutely retarded.

The only reason why they exist is because some lawyer extorted money out of someone, and because some dumbass did something really stupid.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Making inflammatory statements that would require a whole other discussion to address really doesn't advance this discussion, just in case this hadn't occurred to you.

How about you report back when you have an opinion and position on the topic at hand

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not perceiving low blows at my ideology because I frankly don't think he understands or can articulate what it is (the same can be said for many others).

There are two problems here:

1) Some people don't want to recognize any sort of legitimacy whatsoever to positions other than their own

perhaps it can't be seen or perceived, and perhaps for some its not there at all. But i think we're all here for a reason to discuss this..and though perhaps we don't see each other eye to eye and that comes out in our posts...we wouldn't be here to discuss things if we didn't respect each other's view to some degree, regardless of whether or not we see them as valid or based in reality.

2) Like you said, some people don't understand other people's views and could not state them plainly and accurately without editorializing them or spinning them. Instead, they'd rather just keep repeating their own positions and expend the energy convincing you that they are right.

Then the most we can do is state our opinions with dignity and maturity....though the person you are addressing may not get it or see it, others certainly do see it and your arguments are greater than the person you're specifically addressing. The value is not in neccesarily changing one person's mind but perhaps helping other, 3rd parties, see the merit of your view.
[/quote]

In light of these two factors, during my one week vacation I came to realize that trying to coax out productive conversation is literally pointless while this is happening. I'm probably not going to want to bother until I see that there is an interest in breaking these barriers. I love Turtle, he's an awesome guy and I even met him in person, but I'm not sure he really wants to satisfy me.

There is interest in breaking these barriers...but we'll never see eye to eye on everything. Thats the curse and beauty of our system is that we don't have to agree...but by keeping our composure and stating our opinions with integrity we can work towards a middle ground that is far more productive then name calling and giving up. I personally don't see eye to eye with you on quite a few issues but I respect your will to have meaningful discussions quite a bit.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So why can't I run an oral sex booth on my front lawn again?

Nanny state?

Because you're trumping your neighbor's right to a decent environment for live in themselves and to raise their kids.

No neighbors you say? In the middle of nowhere? Thats a good question...write your congressmen.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Right...and this is an easy question...yes or no

Is there a law saying, given that warning label, I can't partake in said activity? Its yes or no and the answer is very important to the issue at hand.

What? I don't think stupidity is against the law.

Laws about warning labels are requirements for companies to follow. The company gets fine and punished for not having the warning label; Not the consumers. It's to protect the consumers, not criminalize them.

The new credit card law is for credit card companies to follow. The company gets fine and punished for not following the guidelines. It is to protect the consumers, not criminalize them.


Consumer protection laws are written to protect consumers; not criminalize consumers. Consumer protection laws are requirements and guidelines for companies/corporations to follow in order to protect consumers. Whether it's to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices, or to protect them from doing something stupid to injure themselves.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

My argument is that the government have laws to protect stupid people from doing stupid things.

Then you have no connection with the princeples that this country was founded upon, and the system laid before us by our founding fathers. If you want to change that - thats all fine and dandy, but you have to respect my right to try and stop you.

I didn't say government should make it against the law to be stupid.

thats exactly what you're arguing for.

If we are jailing people for doing stupid things, there would be very few Americans not in jail.

Exactly the point. We're allowed to as we please and we should reserve that right to the best of our ability, even if it does mean protecting the right to do dumb things.

[besson3c]

Dear Congressman/Congresswoman,

I would like to administer and receive oral sex on my front lawn. I'm a loyal and upstanding tax paying citizen and I voted for you twice. I don't even live near anybody, enclosed are some pictures of my house so that you can see this for yourself.

What do I have to do to receive a license to fulfill my desires? What kind of country do we live in when a man or woman can't run an oral sex business on their front lawn?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What?

My argument is that the government have laws to protect stupid people from doing stupid things.

That is not the point of the laws within this nation. The point is to protect you from doing things that take away other's rights, such as the right to live in the case of drinking and driving.

If it becomes an epidemic and people are dying left and right due to electrocution from using a hairdryer while taking a bath, I guess the government can make it illegal to use a hairdryer while taking a bath.

The government is not responsible for that, nor was it ever intended to be. if people are dying left and right because they're doing that...then at least on the bright side our gene pool just got a whole lot smarter, and the circle continues.

Hey, suicide is illegal. So if you are using a hairdryer while taking a bath, you are either too stupid or trying to commit suicide.

Suicide is as of lately mostly legal (without doing a fact check can anyone please help out with that?)

The fear of death is the reason behind that stupid law (what are you gonna do, throw em in jail before the funeral?) People are so scared of it that they outright ban people from doing to themselves. As time has progressed and cases have gone to court, the overwhelming argument that it is my life to do as I please and thats what the constitution grants me has begun to overtake the innate-human tendency to fear and avoid death at all costs.

Why you think fireworks are illegal in some cities or states?

People people doing dumb things with those leads to you trumping other's right to live. Its an issue of affecting other people's rights.

Because of stupid people blowing their fingers or body parts off. Government stepped in to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things.

No, government stepped in to prevent you from doing stupid things to other, innocent, and otherwise fully-limbed people.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What?

The warning labels are required by law. The law is written as a requirement for companies to follow. The company gets fine and punished for not having the warning label; Not the consumers. It's to protect the consumers, not criminalize them.

The government is stepping in and requiring companies to educate the people on the choice their about to make and the consequences that they might not forsee if they do partake in said activity. Its not to protect people from themselves. Its to educate them on what their about to do because there are serious risks involved. its still up to the person if they want to do that risky activity.


Smoking is a perfect example. The government requires warning labels so that everyone knows the risks they are taking by smoking, which is a reasonable response and I am all for - yet it does not ban them from doing that activity. Its a form of education, not nannying, as this new law is.

The new credit card law is for credit card companies to follow. The company gets fine and punished for not following the guidelines. It is to protect the consumers, not criminalize them.

Then they should do the same thing that they do for other instances of people "needing protection from themselves" as you've put it and put a warning label on it, instead of outright banning it. Its a form of control and an affront to the freedom to enter a contract with a CC company if you so choose.

[hyteckit]

snow-i

So the argument is now:

Government is allowed to pass laws to protect stupid people from doing stupid things, but should not prevent stupid people from doing stupid things if they choose to?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I think we can all agree on the fact that 95% of the warning labels in the US are absolutely retarded.

The only reason why they exist is because some lawyer extorted money out of someone, and because some dumbass did something really stupid.

-t

The warning labels are retarded because it's there to protect stupid people from doing stupid things to themselves.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

snow-i

So the argument is now:

Government is allowed to pass laws to protect stupid people from doing stupid things, but should not prevent stupid people from doing stupid things if they choose to?

The government is not allowed to pass laws to protect stupid people from doing stupid things (but often they do anyways - ie seatbelt laws). The government is involved (and charged with) passing laws to prevent people from doing things that trump other people's rights. The line "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) as you've heard so many times embodies this principle.

The whole idea that the government will provide you everything you need, and make decisions for you is communism - or in a lesser form socialism.

I wish this were a real-life conversation...then we could go out and have a beer while my girlfriend tells you stories of her childhood in communist romania, and why her family came here to escape it. You want the American story? Listen to her for 10 minutes. At the end of it you'll be amazed at what you can accomplish using just your intellect and determination.

(as a side note the reason I have so much time to post nowadays is because she went home to romania to visit the rest of her extended family as she does every year)

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

People people doing dumb things with those leads to you trumping other's right to live. Its an issue of affecting other people's rights.

I use the same argument for banning guns.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, government stepped in to prevent you from doing stupid things to other, innocent, and otherwise fully-limbed people.

Nah, it started out with just warning labels on fireworks. Then they make it mandatory to have adult supervision. But people are too stupid and keep blowing their limbs off. So they made them illegal in many places.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't call them stupid because fireworks can be dangerous and unpredictable.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The warning labels are retarded because it's there to protect stupid people from doing stupid things to themselves.

How many times must this be explained to you? It doesn't prevent you from doing it. It warns you of potential consequences. Its not illegal to disregard that label and continue on your merry way. Do you not see the difference? Or are you just trolling to frustrate those who wish to carry on a meaningful conversation.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I use the same argument for banning guns.



Nah, it started out with just warning labels on fireworks. But people are too stupid and keep blowing their limbs off. So they made them illegal in many places.

You have no concept of the foundation for the american legal system do you?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The government is not allowed to pass laws to protect stupid people from doing stupid things (but often they do anyways - ie seatbelt laws).

Government often pass laws to "protect" stupid people from doing stupid things.

However, government usually don't pass laws "preventing" stupid people from doing stupid things.

[Snow-i]

Hyteckit: This is not meant as a personal attack.

I pity you. Hopefully one day you'll come to realize that the only people that you can trust with your life decisions are yourself and your loved ones. If you think any of the politicians really care about you and your life you are truly lost. If you think the government has your best interest in mind when they make policy or enact "protections" then God, or whatever you believe in, help you - and help us all.

Thats why its so important to maintain the liberties that we still have. No one else will do it for you - you have to make your own life.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Dear Congressman/Congresswoman,

I would like to administer and receive oral sex on my front lawn. I'm a loyal and upstanding tax paying citizen and I voted for you twice. I don't even live near anybody, enclosed are some pictures of my house so that you can see this for yourself.

What do I have to do to receive a license to fulfill my desires? What kind of country do we live in when a man or woman can't run an oral sex business on their front lawn?

I'll sign the petition.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The warning labels are retarded because it's there to protect stupid people from doing stupid things to themselves.

Seems like you ran out of arguments.

Well, you never had a good leg to stand on.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So why can't I run an oral sex booth on my front lawn again?

Nanny state?

You can. If your income is greater than your legal fees and fines (and medical expenses), perhaps you should pursue it.

[hyteckit]

snow-i

I don't think you understand the role of our local, state, and federal government and what laws they can enact in regards to Consumer Protection Laws.

You don't even believe it's the federal government job to protect the people from fraud, until I mention the FTC.


Have you ever operated a business or corporation?


I run a business in California.

There are many laws that I must follow as a business. There are many guidelines, rules, and laws I must follow when dealing with the public or selling my products to the public.

There are sweepstakes and advertisement guidelines.
There are consumer privacy guidelines.
There are mail order laws.
Tons of consumer protection laws.

These laws are there to protect the consumers, not to criminalize or fine consumers. As a business, I'm the one getting fined and punished for not following the guidelines and laws of my city, state, and federal government.

Some of these consumer protection laws are to protect consumers from "unfair and deceptive" trade practices. Some of these consumer protection laws are to protect consumers from doing stupid things to themselves.


As a business do I like these consumer protection laws? No.

I think California is over regulated when it comes to warning labels. Some are quite dumb.

However, it's up to the local, state, and federal government to decide how much protection a consumer needs.


What Pres. Obama doing isn't new.

It's just another Consumer Protection Law.

Some of you think it's necessary, and some of you don't think it's necessary.


However, our Federal Government does have the right to pass Consumer Protection Laws whether it's to protect consumers from "unfair and deceptive" trade practices, or to protect consumers from doing stupid things to themselves.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Seems like you ran out of arguments.

Well, you never had a good leg to stand on.

-t

What's the purpose of warning labels?

What's the purpose of QA labels?

What's the difference between the two?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You have no concept of the foundation for the american legal system do you?

Can you expand on your interpretation of this? After reading your posts, I'm curious as what your view is on the foundation of the American legal system.

Even though were on different sides politically, I have to say that your posts are intelligent and well written and I've enjoyed reading them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So why can't I run an oral sex booth on my front lawn again?

Nanny state?

So what federal law would you be breaking if you did?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Can you expand on your interpretation of this? After reading your posts, I'm curious as what your view is on the foundation of the American legal system.

Even though were on different sides politically, I have to say that your posts are intelligent and well written and I've enjoyed reading them.

I am far too tired to tackle this tonight...but i'll surely be bored at work tomorrow. I'll elaborate on my ideologies at that point.

I thank you for your compliments...i only hope to foster meaningful and productive discussion that everyone can participate in.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

snow-i

I don't think you understand the role of our local, state, and federal government and what laws they can enact in regards to Consumer Protection Laws.

We're specifically discussing the federal government. And this entire discussion is about what laws they can and should pass. Welcome to three pages ago?

You don't even believe it's the federal government job to protect the people from fraud, until I mention the FTC.

i thought you specifically argued against the FTC's role in criminally fraudulent practices? Need a quote?

Have you ever operated a business or corporation?

Absolutely irrelevant. But the answer is yes.

I run a business in California.

Again, irrelevant. But cool.

There are many laws that I must follow as a business. There are many guidelines, rules, and laws I must follow when dealing with the public or selling my products to the public.

Indeed, many laws to keep you from screwing the general public. Those aren't intended to keep the public from screwing themselves - thats their choice (and the crux of my arguments).

There are sweepstakes and advertisement guidelines.
There are consumer privacy guidelines.
There are mail order laws.
Tons of consumer protection laws.

Yep, all to protect them from you. Not themselves.

These laws are there to protect the consumers, not to criminalize or fine consumers. As a business, I'm the one getting fined and punished for not following the guidelines and laws of my city, state, and federal government.

Right, because you'd be the one causing the problems. This law is to keep 18 year old adults from causing their own problems. Do you see the distinction?

Some of these consumer protection laws are to protect consumers from "unfair and deceptive" trade practices. Some of these consumer protection laws are to protect consumers from doing stupid things to themselves.

Show me an example of such a law - I'd love to see more examples of the government sticking their nose in people's business.

As a business do I like these consumer protection laws? No.

Of course not, they keep you (semi) honest.

I think California is over regulated when it comes to warning labels. Some are quite dumb.

I'd agree

However, it's up to the local, state, and federal government to decide how much protection a consumer needs.

Hmm...this is the ideology that I have an issue with. Which part of the constitution gives the government control over keeping people safe from themselves? Everything I see in there is to keep people safe from each other.

What Pres. Obama doing isn't new.

Exactly....his campaign of change has resulted in more of the same...just much more of it.

It's just another Consumer Protection Law.

Scary....its just business as usual for you.

Some of you think it's necessary, and some of you don't think it's necessary.

Again, welcome to page one.

However, our Federal Government does have the right to pass Consumer Protection Laws whether it's to protect consumers from "unfair and deceptive" trade practices, or to protect consumers from doing stupid things to themselves.

No it doesn't. Show me where in the constitution that is outlined? HINT: Its not in there. In fact the constitution was drafted to protect us from the government.

The sad part is that its business as usual for you. I'm still waiting on responses specifically addressing my arguments...i'm not holding my breath though. I don't think you have answers for me...and I'm challenging you to address each one of my points as I have yours, and come up with a legitimate response to each point.

If you can't or don't want to...I'll understand and more importantly, everyone else will too.

[hyteckit]

I wonder if most of these guys arguing against the new credit card consumer protection law, know about usury laws.

Usury laws are the one of the oldest consumer protection laws. It protects consumers by prohibiting lenders from charging outrageous interest rates on loans and credit.


Some here would argue our government should not have usury laws and prevent consumers with bad credit or no credit from accessing these high interest rate loans.

Should it be our government's job to protect consumers from high interest rate loans?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I wonder if most of these guys arguing against the new credit card consumer protection law, know about usury laws.

What does that have to do with anything discussed in this thread. Again. a law to protect people from each other

Usury laws are the one of the oldest consumer protection laws. It protects consumers by prohibiting lenders from charging outrageous interest rates on loans and credit.

The people we're talking about won't even be eligible for the means of credit to be taken advantage of. Again, this is all irrelevant to the topic.

Some here would argue our government should not have usury laws and prevent consumers with bad credit or no credit from accessing these high interest rate loans.

Who here would argue that? Are you attempting to distract this thread with a plethora of strawmen so people don't notice you can't address the arguments presented before you?

Should it be our government's job to protect consumers from high interest rate loans?

Good question for another topic. Has little to do with this one though. I will say this with certainty though. It isn't the federal government's role.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

i thought you specifically argued against the FTC's role in criminally fraudulent practices? Need a quote?

A Fraudulent Crime is handle by the FBI and USDOJ, not FTC. FTC handles consumer complaints and dishes out fines to companies not following guidelines.

Must I repeat? Stop confusing "consumer fraud" with "criminal fraud".


FTC protects consumers against unfair and deceptive trade practices, including consumer fraud. FTC is in charge of fining corporations/companies for not following guidelines and engage in deceptive trade practices.

Microsoft engage in anti-competitive behavior, so they were fined by the FTC. FBI is not involved because no crime has taken placed.


Criminally fraudulent practices are handle by the FBI. Fraudulent crimes are a criminal matter. FBI investigates the crime. If a crime has been committed, the person, corporation, or whoever responsible will be sentence to jail.

Madoff engage in "criminally fraudulent practices" as you put it. The FBI got involved. FTC doesn't handle the fraudulent crime Madoff was engage in.



Here are some "criminally fraudulent practices" that the FBI is involved it:

corporate fraud, health care fraud, mortgage fraud, identity theft, insurance fraud, and money laundering

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/fina...port052005.htm




Why don't you google "consumer fraud" and "fraudulent crime".

Fraudulent Crime
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

USDOJ and FBI are the first 2 results


Consumer Fraud
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...mer+fr&aqi=g10

FTC is the 3rd result.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

A Fraudulent Crime is handle by the FBI and USDOJ, not FTC. FTC handles consumer complaints and dishes out fines to companies not following guidelines.

Alright i'll stop calling it "criminally fraudulant" and say it your way.

FTC protects consumers against unfair and deceptive trade practices, including consumer fraud. FTC is in charge of fining corporations/companies for not following guidelines and engage in deceptive trade practices.

You've still not shown the relevance to the topic at hand, and how the FTC is at all involved with this, even if I concede that your distinction between consumer and criminal fraud is a good point. I apologize for using the wrong vocabulary to describe my argument.

Could you address my real arguments now?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What does that have to do with anything discussed in this thread. Again. a law to protect people from each other

Usury laws are to protect people from each other?

You mean protect the consumer against the lender right?

How? By preventing banks and financial institutions from making high interest rate loans available to consumers with bad credit or no credit.

How is that different from the new credit card law that Obama just passed?



If I have bad credit and the only loan I qualify for is a 50% interest rate credit card, shouldn't I decide if I want to get a credit card? Why does the government need to protect me against 50% interest rates credit cards?

[Snow-i]

What I find interesting is that in three pages of critiques the only argument you've been able to address and refute is one involving separate definitions to a point that was originally irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'd really like to hear what you have to say for my responses to your statements, but you seem to be ignoring them.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Alright i'll stop calling it "criminally fraudulant" and say it your way.

You've still not shown the relevance to the topic at hand, and how the FTC is at all involved with this, even if I concede that your distinction between consumer and criminal fraud is a good point. I apologize for using the wrong vocabulary to describe my argument.

Could you address my real arguments now?

What are your real arguments?

First you said government should not be protecting us against fraud.

When I mention the FTC, you revises to argument to government only protect us against "criminally fraudulent practices".


FTC: consumer fraud, unfair and deceptive practices, and anti-competitive behavior.
FBI: Criminal fraud such as corporate fraud, health care fraud, mortgage fraud, identity theft, insurance fraud, and money laundering

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What I find interesting is that in three pages of critiques the only argument you've been able to address and refute is one involving separate definitions to a point that was originally irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'd really like to hear what you have to say for my responses to your statements, but you seem to be ignoring them.

Okay, what's your current argument?

Government shouldn't prevent consumers from accessing certain loans?

[Dork.]

This thread needs a warning label.

[andi*pandi]

Well, you were stupid enough to read it, why should the mods protect you?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There is plenty of economic interest for the government here.

Thanks, that's all I needed. The rest of our disagreement is really about whether this particular thing is in the "public interest," and I don't think there's any more that can be said that would really change either of our minds.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Thanks, that's all I needed. The rest of our disagreement is really about whether this particular thing is in the "public interest," and I don't think there's any more that can be said that would really change either of our minds.

Notice I didn't elaborate on that statement - purposefully. To get into such a topic would take attention away from the arguments I'm making otherwise. Those are really important so I wish to argue on those alone and let them stand on their own merits, instead of making accusations for which I have no specific support of.

[hyteckit]

Consumer Protection Laws and role of government

Products and Services

DRUGS
1. safe: over the counter. no prescription needed. warning labels
2. relatively safe: prescription needed. warning labels
3. unsafe: remove from the market. Not available to consumers

CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1. safe: no warning labels needed
2. relatively safe: warning labels. Ratings. Adults only.
3. unsafe: remove from the market. Not available to consumers

FINANCIAL PRODUCTS & SERVICES
1. safe: buyer beware. No disclosures
2. relatively safe: disclosure about interest rates, repayment policies, and additional fees
3. unsafe: remove from the market or limited to certain consumers. Ban loans with high interest rates in usury territory. Ban credit cards to adults under 21 without income and credit history



So should the government allow all products and services even those that the government deem unsafe for consumers?

As long as there is disclosure and warning labels, it's the consumers to decide?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

As long as there is disclosure and warning labels, it's the consumers to decide?

Bingo.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

3. unsafe: remove from the market or limited to certain consumers. Ban loans with high interest rates in usury territory. Ban credit cards to adults under 21 without income and credit history

Unsafe ?

How the f*** is a Credit Card "unsafe" ?

What harm does it pose to the general public ?

And please, don't give the typical "it can be used in unsafe ways, to harm to yourself".
Under that definition, the gov't needed to ban almost any and everything, as people have known to be creative enough to destroy themselves with whatever they get their hands on.

For sure, we should NOT allow knives, scissors, razor blades, tools, cleaning products etc to be sold openly.

-t

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Well, you were stupid enough to read it, why should the mods protect you?

I'm not the one who needs protecting. Won't somebody think of the children?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I'm not the one who needs protecting. Won't somebody think of the children?

You mean, those children with regular income and good enough credit history to qualify for a CC ?

Yeah, those need to be protected

-t