View Single Post
05-15-2013, 12:31 PM
Checked out
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hiking
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,856
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Draekke View Post
The more and more I read about the situation and the argument between pro-arena and anti-arena sides, the more I feel that one side is coming off a little more "uppity" than the other. That the anti-arena arguments are exercising hypocrisy, when discussing the principles of tax money being spent on the arena.

I get that anti-arena people think it's wrong that the city is paying so much, and that the billionaire owner is just being greedy, and that the argument of "why should I, a person who never goes to a game live anyways, care about a new arena that might provide benefits above and beyond what the current arena has to offer to those who go to the tax dollars shouldn't go to something like that." I understand the arguments, I do (and yes, there are other sides of the argument, just didn't want to list it all). But from my standpoint, anti-arena people who don't want their tax dollars spent on this are upset that they are basically paying for something that they are not personally benefiting from (or that they perceive other funding opportunities may be more beneficial). So they are up in arms that, theoretically, they are losing out on other benefits that their taxes might pay for.

So anti-arena people are "losing" those potential benefits, and that seems to me to be one of the biggest pieces of the argument; that you are upset that you are losing something without benefit.

But if that's the principal in which you are arguing, it's really counter-intuitive, or hypocritical.

Pro-arena people are upset that there is a possibility that they won't get the benefit of a much better building for their team to play in. Perhaps this group is made up of a lot of fans that go to the game, and will enjoy those benefits first-hand. But the other side of the argument here, is the pro-arena people are worried that without this arena, the Oilers may end up moving. For some people, the Oilers encompass the one thing that those people are passionate about. Watching, and having pride for, your team is something that pro-arena people may value above a lot of other things. And what pro-arena people might be hearing when they listen to the arguments from anti-arena people, is that their team may not be as important to everyone. And that just because some don't believe that taxes should go towards this, there is a possibility that the passion that drives them may leave the city.

Basically I see it coming down to this:

Anti-arena = Upset in principle that taxes are being put towards this, and so are "losing" those potential benefits that don't get purchased with the tax dollars spent elsewhere.

Pro-arena = Upset that because some other people may not share their passion (or have as much passion for) their team, they may lose it.

This is just how I see it, and may be completely off base, but it seems to me that anti-arena people are unhappy that they lose tax dollar spending for an arena. And that they think that because it is going towards an arena, they are losing out on other things and that it's not fair, and shouldn't happen that way. You shouldn't have to give up the things that you want for unnecessary luxury items. But pro-arena people believe that if this doesn't go through, if tax dollars aren't spent on the arena, they may be losing out on the benefits that they perceive to enjoy for themselves. That they are losing an item that they care for dearly, because other don't want it.

Aren't some of those principle based arguments just hypocrisy if tax dollars aren't spent on this, and the part of the population that wants this to happen then lose out on the benefits that they desire?

Whether or not you believe that the tax dollars should be spent on something like this, the argument is there. Should one portion of the population lose out on something that they want just because the other portion doesn't want it? This goes both ways. No is the answer. But unfortunately there is limited capital here. Something's got to give. Neither side is right, neither side is wrong...however I think that the people who are arguing principles for anti-arena are being hypocritical. (I would also believe that principle-based pro-arena arguments are hypocritical too, but I don't see many of those...or have just missed them or something).
tbh despite you stating the same thing half a dozen times I have no idea what you are actually stating. You used the word hypocritical several times without denoting why it is hypocritical to have one or the other opinion.

Replacement* is offline