Here is the funny thing, the name calling within this very thread about how bad name calling is, didn't even warrant an infraction. And yet people claim no moral equivalency.
I think what has happened here is unfortunate and disgusting in many ways. Jeremy is not acting in a way I think is acceptable. However I believe the way this discussion on this site is being handled is also objectionable. There is an obvious bias, politically, here and it is being enforced by the moderators. And that is unfortunate.
On this very page, of this thread, a warning is issued saying
"Public Mod Note (Wildfire393): Warning for trolling - "Alt-Left" is just another way to blame "the SJWs""
This is a fine warning in a vacuum, but earlier "alt-right" was used to no warning, check pages 1, 6, and 7. In these posts, people are relating an entire wing of the political system as Nazis, racists, and the like. This is obviously false but serves a political narrative. One where everyone who does not share my political opinion is a terrible human being and as such I must discredit them with name calling.
Since Mtgsalvation is a private entity, it is free to moderate as it wishes in this regard, but it should be aware that such open bias will drive away a significant portion of the potential readers (43-48% depending on poll in the USA). And many of these people you drive away, are good, respectful, smart people. The moderators are right, bullying and harassment of any kind is wrong and indefensible, but the politically charged name calling that is being promoted here is not much better.
So I urge the moderators, and the community as a whole, to fight against bullying and harassment to the best of your ability. But remember that bullies and jerks have no over-arching political affiliation, and acting as though they do is naive.
"No big deal", yeah, tell that to all of the women that need birth control to live. Republicans have been waging war on women for some time now and there's going to be a huge backlash. And this does set a dangerous precedent: that corporations are people and can have religious beliefs, and force their beliefs on their employees. You're welcome to celebrate your religion however you wish, but the moment you deny someone the right to do something, whether it's two men getting married, or women needing birth control, or a woman needing an abortion, you are oppressing them. Gay marriage doesn't affect your marriage. You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
Either you are blowing this up to way more of an issue than the ruling actually is, or you don't understand what actually got "ruled." Only 4 types of post fertilization contraceptives were involved in this ruling. This is NOT denying the women who work there access to any contraception. It is taking 4 specific drugs out of over 20 that are used after the act and saying, that the corporation does not have to provide it.
I do not understand where people get this idea that this is denying anything to anyone. Its merely saying that religious owners of a small business do not have to violate their faith to provide these 4 pills for free. There are many many other ways for women to go about getting access to these without trampling on the religious freedom of small business owners.
I don't think some in this thread quite understand what is going on with this ruling. This ruling is not breaking new ground or setting new precedent. There will be no uproar over it because it's really not that huge of a deal.
The ruling is in line with the ruling in the Citizens United case a while back. Where they stated that just because people join together in a corporations does not mean they sacrifice their 1st amendment rights. This is just applying the rest of the 1st amendment to corporations. It's also in line with the Religious freedom restoration act that was passed in the 90s on a nearly unanimous vote in congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. This also follows a long history of the Supreme court protecting the religious rights of people from the government that goes back 80+ years covering multiple religions.
It also surprises me that people can call Christianity "radical" and "right wing" when almost half of all of all Democrats (Left-wing party) are bible reading Christians. Over 70% of the country is Christian. 90%+ believe in a God of some sort. Radical and Right-wing both insinuate that it's a "fringe" belief, which it is anything but "fringe." If this ruling was turned around and it was an Atheist couple suing over having their beliefs trampled there would be no complaints.
This very argument shows how unfair people are to the religious freedoms of the religious majority in this country. It is frightening how quickly people are ready to let the government encroach on a basic human right of someone, just because they are just "right wing Christians who I don't agree with." People need to realize what "fairness" actually means.
Here the supreme court got it right and said that congress cannot force the owners of tightly-held businesses to, in essence, stop practicing their religion.
I wonder how this will go for anything that isn't right-wing Christianity.
Hopefully the same way. As this was actually a catholic belief, the chances seem good. In the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s the Supreme court defended the rights of jehovah's witnesses on almost 40 different occasions.
Remember in 2008 the Barna Group did a study which found only 57% of Republicans were Christians while 40% of Democrats were. To frame religion as only being "right-wing" is unfair.
EDIT: I apologize for the double post. The comment I replied to in this post was not yet posted when I was writing the first post.
I don't necessarily think there is confusion about what the constitution says or means. I think there are a lot of people like me that 1) don't care what the constitution says, and 2) dont see a business as a person. The US government disagrees with me on both counts.
I do not understand how you can not care about the document that is the foundation of modern western freedoms and democracy, but to each their own.
The beauty of this country and of the constitution is that you are allowed to believe that, and you will not be jailed for it. You seem okay with not forcing those beliefs on others, so the system seems to work well. And I love that people can have a civil debate and openly express beliefs.
There seems to be wide spread confusion on how the constitution is worded. It does not give you protection from other people expressing their religion. It only gives you protection from the government forcing a religion or religious practice upon you. This whole idea that the government can force religious people to act like atheists is contrary to what is actually said in the constitution. Here the supreme court got it right and said that congress cannot force the owners of tightly-held businesses to, in essence, stop practicing their religion. Which if you read the first amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
is very clearly against the rules. It does not protect the employee in the case because they are not being prevented from practicing their religion or lack there of. They are merely prevented from doing so on the dime of a religious person who is forced into the action by an act of congress.
People should remember that Kruphix doesn't need to be constructed playable, and wont be substantially better then the other gods. So not every proposed idea needs to be pushed to the point of breaking multiple formats. Time walk, Dream Halls, and Stasis effects are not going to be aggressively costed on an indestructible permanent.
I think it would do us good to keep power level in mind when doing this type of speculation. But that's just my opinion.
I think people should remember that how a playgroup plays, and the rules and standards they follow are not indicative of the skill level of the players in that play group. And that we should be very accepting of all play groups as it means the best format in magic is alive and well.
I play in a playgroup with a former pro tour competitor, and multiple long time PTQ goers. And we play what would be considered a very "casual" game. And we frown upon many of the strategies that seem popular on this board. But that doesn't mean we are bad players.
We all should just remember that play groups make their own decisions depending on what they want to get out of the game. We should neither condemn the play of others, or force our beliefs onto them.
Wizards has stated that they are moving away from multicolored. They have also done this is practice in M10.
How does packing two cycles of rare dual lands into Zendikar do anything to change the status quo? All that does is say, "Play your shard cards, and Zendikar's heavily mono-colored cards too!" I'm sick of red decks casting a spell that cost UUU1.
I just think people are beginning to expect 2-3 cycles of dual lands in standard at all times. We may see five enemy colored lands of some sort but I think believing that we will have both Fetchlands and Horizon Canopy lands is fool hardy.
On a side note, didn't wizards mention at some point that they thought the fetch lands were way above the power curve? I'll have to see if I can find that article. Hmph.
1. new players dont like CIPT lands
2. Rare lands are one of the big draws to booster back sells
3 we already have cipt 3 color lands
1) With all due respect, sir, the new players I play with prefer CIPT lands to pains. On topic though, Wizards has only stated that these lands will not do damage. Coming into play tapped, is not dealing damage.
2) This has no relevance, because we have seen sets without rare lands before. Take Alara block as an example.
3) The tri-lands are a block cycle, and are not "superior" in every way. You underestimate the relevance of land types. Even if they were "inferior" to the tri-lands, we have seen in many cases Wizards print functionally superior cards in expert level sets as compared to base sets at the uncommon rarity before.
EDIT**
@Saarmae: What purpose did your post serve? It adds nothing to the conversation. As your post stands, it seems like a violation of the CoC, and a backhanded way to poke fun at a theory that I'd be willing to bet, you cant disprove.
I am looking for someone to point me to something Wizards has stated, that confirms in some way, that these "CIPT Revised Duals" are not the M10 lands. Any evidence I have seen provided, on any thread on this site, is merely an assumption made by the poster(s).
I know recently they've been closing the M10 dual land threads. But I have a question in regards to those. Hear me out.
Everyone dismisses the simple cipt revised dual because its an uncommon power level. Yet, it is the cleanest possible dual land design I can think of.
The reasons they dismiss these lands is that the new lands are rare. . . .
Wait. . . .
Wizards didn't confirm that. They said the lands were "powerful," "amazing" and "new".
Hmm, seems to me that, barring I missed something, the speculators on this site are jumping the gun. Just because they replace a rare cycle, doesnt mean they, themselves, are a rare cycle.
Also, it accomplishes all of Wizards stated goals. It doesn't deal damage, its not better then a basic, its new player friendly, and its a simple core set design. Yet, the lands, I believe, are deceptively powerful, and very constructed playable if the current rare lands rotate. The basic land type also keep them from being strictly inferior to any current uncommon lands. They discourage the "vivid land effect," where you have a blurring of the color pie, that allows 4 and 5 color decks full of the best spells. They also open up core set rare slots for nonbasic lands of another sort (City of Brass, Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Flagstones of Trokair)
I don't have a clue what the new lands will be, but I think it a bit hasty to dismiss the idea. Alara has shown that uncommon and common mana fixing will do the job, and that Wizards is willing to let it. Maybe we should be willing to consider it.
Just a thought.
****If you have confirmation that the lands are indeed rare, let me know. But nothing stated by wizards to this point, unless Im mistaking, has confirmed this. It seems to be an assumption people are just making.****
On this very page, of this thread, a warning is issued saying
"Public Mod Note (Wildfire393): Warning for trolling - "Alt-Left" is just another way to blame "the SJWs""
This is a fine warning in a vacuum, but earlier "alt-right" was used to no warning, check pages 1, 6, and 7. In these posts, people are relating an entire wing of the political system as Nazis, racists, and the like. This is obviously false but serves a political narrative. One where everyone who does not share my political opinion is a terrible human being and as such I must discredit them with name calling.
Since Mtgsalvation is a private entity, it is free to moderate as it wishes in this regard, but it should be aware that such open bias will drive away a significant portion of the potential readers (43-48% depending on poll in the USA). And many of these people you drive away, are good, respectful, smart people. The moderators are right, bullying and harassment of any kind is wrong and indefensible, but the politically charged name calling that is being promoted here is not much better.
So I urge the moderators, and the community as a whole, to fight against bullying and harassment to the best of your ability. But remember that bullies and jerks have no over-arching political affiliation, and acting as though they do is naive.
It's quite disturbing that people actually think this way. :/
Edit: I did get the sarcasm
Either you are blowing this up to way more of an issue than the ruling actually is, or you don't understand what actually got "ruled." Only 4 types of post fertilization contraceptives were involved in this ruling. This is NOT denying the women who work there access to any contraception. It is taking 4 specific drugs out of over 20 that are used after the act and saying, that the corporation does not have to provide it.
I do not understand where people get this idea that this is denying anything to anyone. Its merely saying that religious owners of a small business do not have to violate their faith to provide these 4 pills for free. There are many many other ways for women to go about getting access to these without trampling on the religious freedom of small business owners.
The ruling is in line with the ruling in the Citizens United case a while back. Where they stated that just because people join together in a corporations does not mean they sacrifice their 1st amendment rights. This is just applying the rest of the 1st amendment to corporations. It's also in line with the Religious freedom restoration act that was passed in the 90s on a nearly unanimous vote in congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. This also follows a long history of the Supreme court protecting the religious rights of people from the government that goes back 80+ years covering multiple religions.
It also surprises me that people can call Christianity "radical" and "right wing" when almost half of all of all Democrats (Left-wing party) are bible reading Christians. Over 70% of the country is Christian. 90%+ believe in a God of some sort. Radical and Right-wing both insinuate that it's a "fringe" belief, which it is anything but "fringe." If this ruling was turned around and it was an Atheist couple suing over having their beliefs trampled there would be no complaints.
This very argument shows how unfair people are to the religious freedoms of the religious majority in this country. It is frightening how quickly people are ready to let the government encroach on a basic human right of someone, just because they are just "right wing Christians who I don't agree with." People need to realize what "fairness" actually means.
Hopefully the same way. As this was actually a catholic belief, the chances seem good. In the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s the Supreme court defended the rights of jehovah's witnesses on almost 40 different occasions.
Remember in 2008 the Barna Group did a study which found only 57% of Republicans were Christians while 40% of Democrats were. To frame religion as only being "right-wing" is unfair.
EDIT: I apologize for the double post. The comment I replied to in this post was not yet posted when I was writing the first post.
I do not understand how you can not care about the document that is the foundation of modern western freedoms and democracy, but to each their own.
The beauty of this country and of the constitution is that you are allowed to believe that, and you will not be jailed for it. You seem okay with not forcing those beliefs on others, so the system seems to work well. And I love that people can have a civil debate and openly express beliefs.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
is very clearly against the rules. It does not protect the employee in the case because they are not being prevented from practicing their religion or lack there of. They are merely prevented from doing so on the dime of a religious person who is forced into the action by an act of congress.
I think it would do us good to keep power level in mind when doing this type of speculation. But that's just my opinion.
I play in a playgroup with a former pro tour competitor, and multiple long time PTQ goers. And we play what would be considered a very "casual" game. And we frown upon many of the strategies that seem popular on this board. But that doesn't mean we are bad players.
We all should just remember that play groups make their own decisions depending on what they want to get out of the game. We should neither condemn the play of others, or force our beliefs onto them.
How does packing two cycles of rare dual lands into Zendikar do anything to change the status quo? All that does is say, "Play your shard cards, and Zendikar's heavily mono-colored cards too!" I'm sick of red decks casting a spell that cost UUU1.
I just think people are beginning to expect 2-3 cycles of dual lands in standard at all times. We may see five enemy colored lands of some sort but I think believing that we will have both Fetchlands and Horizon Canopy lands is fool hardy.
On a side note, didn't wizards mention at some point that they thought the fetch lands were way above the power curve? I'll have to see if I can find that article. Hmph.
1) With all due respect, sir, the new players I play with prefer CIPT lands to pains. On topic though, Wizards has only stated that these lands will not do damage. Coming into play tapped, is not dealing damage.
2) This has no relevance, because we have seen sets without rare lands before. Take Alara block as an example.
3) The tri-lands are a block cycle, and are not "superior" in every way. You underestimate the relevance of land types. Even if they were "inferior" to the tri-lands, we have seen in many cases Wizards print functionally superior cards in expert level sets as compared to base sets at the uncommon rarity before.
EDIT**
@Saarmae: What purpose did your post serve? It adds nothing to the conversation. As your post stands, it seems like a violation of the CoC, and a backhanded way to poke fun at a theory that I'd be willing to bet, you cant disprove.
I am looking for someone to point me to something Wizards has stated, that confirms in some way, that these "CIPT Revised Duals" are not the M10 lands. Any evidence I have seen provided, on any thread on this site, is merely an assumption made by the poster(s).
Everyone dismisses the simple cipt revised dual because its an uncommon power level. Yet, it is the cleanest possible dual land design I can think of.
The reasons they dismiss these lands is that the new lands are rare. . . .
Wait. . . .
Wizards didn't confirm that. They said the lands were "powerful," "amazing" and "new".
Hmm, seems to me that, barring I missed something, the speculators on this site are jumping the gun. Just because they replace a rare cycle, doesnt mean they, themselves, are a rare cycle.
Also, it accomplishes all of Wizards stated goals. It doesn't deal damage, its not better then a basic, its new player friendly, and its a simple core set design. Yet, the lands, I believe, are deceptively powerful, and very constructed playable if the current rare lands rotate. The basic land type also keep them from being strictly inferior to any current uncommon lands. They discourage the "vivid land effect," where you have a blurring of the color pie, that allows 4 and 5 color decks full of the best spells. They also open up core set rare slots for nonbasic lands of another sort (City of Brass, Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Flagstones of Trokair)
I don't have a clue what the new lands will be, but I think it a bit hasty to dismiss the idea. Alara has shown that uncommon and common mana fixing will do the job, and that Wizards is willing to let it. Maybe we should be willing to consider it.
Just a thought.
****If you have confirmation that the lands are indeed rare, let me know. But nothing stated by wizards to this point, unless Im mistaking, has confirmed this. It seems to be an assumption people are just making.****