I'm wondering what you think that means. I'm a liberal whose unfriended someone and would fall on that poll. Why?
Because the former friend called me a race traitor for voting for president Obama and then went on a racial rant all over facebook. Now, does my decision to unfriend that person reflect poorly on me? I don't think so. :/
well regardless of the results of the survey, the fact that you've managed to take a statistical reality about an aggregate of people personally suggests you're liberal
the majority of americans also believe that being persecuted for your religious beliefs is wrong.
Isn't it amazing we live in a country where to be persecuted for your religion means being dropped from a television show instead of having your place of worship bombed or you and yours being rounded up and killed
until you get thrown in jail for refusing to pay for other people's abortions
[QUOTE=magickware99;11411646If anything, this just proves that homosexuality is nowhere near as accepted as people thought it was. Though it may just be that liberals and moderates in the U.S. are just blind, deluded fools who ignored what's going on around them and thought that the things going on in the military and CA meant anything in terms of people ACTUALLY accepting homosexuality. I don't know.
A&E dropped Mike Robertson early on because that was the socially accepted thing to do these days. Some group starts raging about someone making an "anti-gay" statement? Better drop that guy before he starts hurting our bottom line.
Except... this time dropping the guy hurt their bottom line more than keeping them. So they kept him.
The majority of Americans support gay marriage and it has been increasing rapidly over the past decade.[/QUOTE]
the majority of americans also believe that being persecuted for your religious beliefs is wrong.
Because there's a difference between rednecks, hillbillies, white trash, country folk, and good ol' boys that people outside the South may not know about.
Please elaborate. I would love to hear and read this.
Rednecks are similar to hillbillies in that they discourage "gettin' above yer raisins," anti-intellectualism, and a general delight in reveling in their own ignorance. Hillbillies, however, are most commonly descendants of the Scots-Irish that settled Appalachia and Missouri. They had to settle these areas and are culturally separate from mainstream America because they were shunned by society when they first immigrated to America. Their dialect is distinct; the last time I was in southern Appalachia I could not understand a word they were saying.
Rednecks are termed that way due to the trademark "farmer's tan" common among farm and manual laborers, but that's not necessary to be a redneck (indeed, then women could not be rednecks). They are not limited to the South, there are rednecks in places like Montana and Alaska. Rednecks do not have college degrees in most cases because of the above aforementioned reasons. In the South they enjoy such sublime pasttimes like muddin' and driving around in trucks the size of small yachts. They are generally pro-Second Amendment, and believe strongly in individual liberty and their immediate units (including family and kinsmen in their areas). Because of their trust and bond with their immediate units, they are distrustful of anyone outside of this, including people from the city, people of color, and immigrants. Rednecks can be working or lower-middle class, but it is rare to find a real redneck among the upper middle class or upper classes.
White trash are white people with inferior morality and/or poor hygiene. White trash can be either poor or rich; there are no class distinctions. Fatherlessness is common among white trash (although you can have no father and not be white trash, it is just a feature of white trash due to the lack of personal responsibility prevalent among white trash). They suffer from high unemployment rates and generally do not find it shameful to live off the welfare dime. (Rednecks, on the other hand, do find it shameful, although farm subsidies do not count towards this.)
Country folk are rural inhabitants who are just like you or me, but enjoy the rural lifestyle. They may have been born in a rural area, or grew tired of city life. They may (but not necessarily) enjoy such pasttimes as shooting guns, hunting, farming, and fishing. They can be of any color or class. They can have college degrees.
Good ol' boys refers to the landed male white gentry. They are generally old rich. They are politically connected via employment or family. They can be polite to the point of obsequiousness. Very prim and proper, and generally believe that chivalry is not dead. However, when they are around their fellow good ol' boys they let loose and can behave crazily. If a crime is committed by a good ol' boy, it's usually DUI or DWI.
I could go on and on about this.
now replace every instance of "redneck" with "porchmonkey".
And billy/fresh prince keep getting suspended for getting repeated infracted for flaming/stonewalling/trolling. Mystery has, iirc, had previous forced breaks from the forum. The guy argued in circles and was rarely able to offer much in the way of support for his opinions.
Which is exactly why we need to scrutinize the claim the OP is making, which leaves nebulous who, precisely, is being driven out of the forums.
If he's talking about the users we've gotten over the years in the Religion subforum who support more conservative Christian positions, then you're most likely dealing with the more extreme users whose posts are characterized by unsubstantiated arguments, ignorance as to the subject matter, and circular reasoning. The fact that these members don't receive support and are being moved out isn't some problem that is afflicting the forums, it is exactly how the free interchange of ideas should work. These arguments aren't being rejected unfairly, they're being rejected because they're bad arguments.
And indeed, is no different from the people who make terrible arguments about any other religious position, including atheism. We've had all sorts on that subforum. The problem is not the religious position, but the quality of the poster.
But all of this is speculation because, again, the OP isn't saying who's being driven out, so all we have is innuendo. Essentially, we're being asked to have a discussion around the motives of an unnumbered, unspecified group of people, and as such, we're asked to speculate on the motives of anyone and no one. This does not make for a productive conversation.
You're right. no one has been driven out. except the right wing EXTREMISTS. Anyone who has been driven out and no longer posts in these forums, please post in this forum to confirm you have been driven out.
OP is clearly stirring up ****, he's stirring up **** because I say he is. I'm going to go post in the "are right wingers inherently racist" thread because I've seen way more conservative EXTREMISM in this thread than I can handle. blinking spirit, please go ahead and ban the OP for insulting the hivemind. er, i mean "trolling"
god bless him for having the courage to speak the truth. he got fed to the lions, as do most christians who have the audacity to speak their beliefs in today's society.
We can also point to almost every other form of entertainment that uses stereotypes to entertain, it's an accepted thing...yet, its different here because a segement wants to wrongly paint it as racist?
No it's different here because the team name is a racist slur.
thats what you're supposed to be proving, not asserting.
In a land of freedom we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness.
Wait, you're saying that unemployment from wage increases would be frictional (AKA temporary)? I thought you were arguing that the consequences would be longterm and permanent...
you are failing to comprehend basic economics, you looked the term up on wikipedia, and you misinterpreted their explanation. frictional unemployment is a macroeconomic phenomenon. just because any given individual's period of unemployment is temporary doesn't mean the overall-phenomenon isn't permanent and doesn't cause an immense amount of economic hardship on those who are most vulnerable.
you (and the person i originally responded to) are literally suggesting that low-skilled individuals not being able to find jobs; as a direct result of the government mandating that only jobs which create a marginal product above a certain arbitrary amount are allowed to exist; is not a problem. this is not only insane, its completely contrary to what you have been saying in this thread.
you have totally lost sight of the debate and your own argument and are only out to (erroneously and fallaciously) prove others wrong.
First of all I probably knew the term when you were crawling out of your mother's womb... I was first taught the term fully when I was educating nearly 20 years ago now, and it was something I'd had covered briefly in economics in high school beforehand. [Back in my day we actually had classes like that... had home econ (i.e. mostly cooking) and music in grade school too!]
And by definition frictional unemployment is a temporary phenomena - and there's been plenty of studies that demonstrate that minimum wage increases only create a temporary dip in employment which then recedes within 6 months and has no long term malus in all cases, even the NJ study which was refuted by one group was later refuted by MULTIPLE groups for being wrong. Every other case I've seen analyzed has universally demonstrated "temporary loss, longterm no substantial deviation".
As for us not thinking it's a problem - that's like saying "We don't think chopping limbs off is a problem" if we support amputation for severe diabetic issues, some times some temporary pain creates a better environment for the whole and can be adapted to in time. It's an absurd strawman - any change in anything in the economy causes some jobs to be lost, the only way you can argue it without it being a strawman is to present an idea that would create no jobs ever be lost.
It's literally an intentionally unachievable goal that you know you can't reach but yet you try to present to opponents of your views, while barely detailing your own. (Other than "change bad!" - but not changing anything also causes job losses quite often, OOPS!)
you are totally and unequivocally wrong, you have no source for your statements because they are totally untrue.
if the minimum wage is X per hour, then jobs with a marginal product of <x per hour will no longer exist. this is axiomatically true. I am utterly baffled that you think you can dispute something like this.
your "experts agree/uncited studies have found" bull**** is totally unfounded and doesn't belong in this thread.
and your last point is, surprise surprise, totally fallacious. just because frictional unemployment can never be fully eradicated, doesn't mean that reducing frictional unemployment isn't a bad thing (and it certainly doesn't mean its a good thing, your non-relevant analogy notwithstanding)
again, you throw around the word strawman for absolutely no reason. stop using that buzzword.
my view is simple: minimum wage causes unemployment and unemployment is bad. you can clearly deduce my views from my posts (the post you are responding to alone), unlike certain people on this board i don't morph my views to stretch the goalposts as far as possible.
Wait, you're saying that unemployment from wage increases would be frictional (AKA temporary)? I thought you were arguing that the consequences would be longterm and permanent...
you are failing to comprehend basic economics, you looked the term up on wikipedia, and you misinterpreted their explanation. frictional unemployment is a macroeconomic phenomenon. just because any given individual's period of unemployment is temporary doesn't mean the overall-phenomenon isn't permanent and doesn't cause an immense amount of economic hardship on those who are most vulnerable.
you (and the person i originally responded to) are literally suggesting that low-skilled individuals not being able to find jobs; as a direct result of the government mandating that only jobs which create a marginal product above a certain arbitrary amount are allowed to exist; is not a problem. this is not only insane, its completely contrary to what you have been saying in this thread.
you have totally lost sight of the debate and your own argument and are only out to (erroneously and fallaciously) prove others wrong.
(I'm all right with it. I prefer multi color decks, but mono color lovers deserve their time in the sun too.)
i like mono-color as well. but there is only one relevant mechanic in theros, devotion. only one bestow card gets played (in a devotion deck) and zero heroic cards get played. if you think about the wotc playtesting process, the majority of the decks in the format were probably tested card for card by wotc. there is very little room for innovation; devotion is a deckbuilding constriction. it limits options it does not expand them.
if you are concerned with the employment rate then clearly you should be against the minimum wage, since it mandates unemployment.
Good thing we don't want full employment, we want "full" employment. Having unemployed people is good for the economy, to a point. Isn't it about 3-5% unemployment considered full employment?
Also, dont farm jobs not have same unemployment rules?
you are feebly grasping at the concept of frictional and non-frictional employment. and clearly unemployment as a result of wage-mandates would be frictional so your (attempted) point is moot.
I've always wondered why, if the mana system leads to so many games being decided by luck, pro players who make money off of being skillful at the game never complain about it.
why dont you try thinking it through and applying basic logic.
well regardless of the results of the survey, the fact that you've managed to take a statistical reality about an aggregate of people personally suggests you're liberal
no one is saying we don't post for fear of offending others. we don't post because disagreeing with the hivemind is pointless.
until you get thrown in jail for refusing to pay for other people's abortions
The majority of Americans support gay marriage and it has been increasing rapidly over the past decade.[/QUOTE]
the majority of americans also believe that being persecuted for your religious beliefs is wrong.
now replace every instance of "redneck" with "porchmonkey".
You're right. no one has been driven out. except the right wing EXTREMISTS. Anyone who has been driven out and no longer posts in these forums, please post in this forum to confirm you have been driven out.
OP is clearly stirring up ****, he's stirring up **** because I say he is. I'm going to go post in the "are right wingers inherently racist" thread because I've seen way more conservative EXTREMISM in this thread than I can handle. blinking spirit, please go ahead and ban the OP for insulting the hivemind. er, i mean "trolling"
thats what you're supposed to be proving, not asserting.
In a land of freedom we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness.
you are totally and unequivocally wrong, you have no source for your statements because they are totally untrue.
if the minimum wage is X per hour, then jobs with a marginal product of <x per hour will no longer exist. this is axiomatically true. I am utterly baffled that you think you can dispute something like this.
your "experts agree/uncited studies have found" bull**** is totally unfounded and doesn't belong in this thread.
and your last point is, surprise surprise, totally fallacious. just because frictional unemployment can never be fully eradicated, doesn't mean that reducing frictional unemployment isn't a bad thing (and it certainly doesn't mean its a good thing, your non-relevant analogy notwithstanding)
again, you throw around the word strawman for absolutely no reason. stop using that buzzword.
my view is simple: minimum wage causes unemployment and unemployment is bad. you can clearly deduce my views from my posts (the post you are responding to alone), unlike certain people on this board i don't morph my views to stretch the goalposts as far as possible.
you are failing to comprehend basic economics, you looked the term up on wikipedia, and you misinterpreted their explanation. frictional unemployment is a macroeconomic phenomenon. just because any given individual's period of unemployment is temporary doesn't mean the overall-phenomenon isn't permanent and doesn't cause an immense amount of economic hardship on those who are most vulnerable.
you (and the person i originally responded to) are literally suggesting that low-skilled individuals not being able to find jobs; as a direct result of the government mandating that only jobs which create a marginal product above a certain arbitrary amount are allowed to exist; is not a problem. this is not only insane, its completely contrary to what you have been saying in this thread.
you have totally lost sight of the debate and your own argument and are only out to (erroneously and fallaciously) prove others wrong.
i like mono-color as well. but there is only one relevant mechanic in theros, devotion. only one bestow card gets played (in a devotion deck) and zero heroic cards get played. if you think about the wotc playtesting process, the majority of the decks in the format were probably tested card for card by wotc. there is very little room for innovation; devotion is a deckbuilding constriction. it limits options it does not expand them.
you are feebly grasping at the concept of frictional and non-frictional employment. and clearly unemployment as a result of wage-mandates would be frictional so your (attempted) point is moot.
why dont you try thinking it through and applying basic logic.
Troll infraction issued. -Xen