MTG Salvation

Quote from Rob »

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=70383&postcount=334

That's exactly my point, I don't see how that works as a reason to deny gay marriage. If you (general 'you' here, not you specifically, Rob) believe that having and raising children is a vital part of marriage, that's cool, but the ability to have and raise children isn't exclusive to heterosexual couples. So I whole-heartedly agree with you, Rob, but I still don't get how that logically forms an argument against gay marriage. Unless it doesn't and I totally missed the point.

Quote from Rob »

You're missing the point of that whole marriage is based on child-bearing and rearing argument. The point is to show that it is possible to oppose gay marriage without being irrational and homophobic. The idea of child-bearing and child-rearing being necessary to marriage is part of the premise of the argument.

I can understand the argument that child-bearing and rearing are necessary for marriage, but homosexuals aren't incapable of that. It's true that they wouldn't have childdren the conventional way (matching parts don't quite fit together in a baby-making way), but it's by no means impossible that they could bear and raise children. Adoption is one manner, as is artificial insemination and/or the use of a surrogate mother. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the logic behind the argument, but gay couples can be capable of both child-bearing and child-rearing.

Quote from Rav_Baloth26 »

are you sure it is supposed to come out for ps2 i never heard that did u hear it from a reliable source because i think that the whole RE series is now exclusive only to gamecube.

Well the boards at GameFAQs have been lit asunder by console fanboys fighting over where RE should be, but it is indeed crossing back to the PS2 for Christmas-time. Its GameFAQs page is here. Check out it message board for more info. The Gamespot news release (100% reliable) is here. Apparently it was public outcry that led to the rethinking of the Nintendo-excusivity idea. I don't care why, all I care about is that Resident Evil 4 is mine this Christmas!

Quote from Rav_Baloth26 »

i just got RE4 the other day and that game is amazing if anyone who has a gamecube has not played it yet they HAVE to! Easily one of the best games to come out for any system since chronotrigger. Just another reason why gamecube is the best!

I can't wait until next year when RE4 is released for the PS2, it looks insanely good. When it was announced as GC-exclusive, my heart sank. But then it was announced to appear on the PS2 as well, and my happy came back. It'll be a long wait, but well worth it. I guess I'll have to bide my time with Outbreak Files 1 & 2, and my brand-new full set of Silent Hill games until then.

Quote from msun641 »

Another example of how gov't intervention can seriously screw with the economy, although, I agree that this has to do with the unions. Gov't preference of unions is morally and legally wrong. However, that really isn't the point. It should be an employer's choice to decide who should get overtime. If he doesn't offer it to the inefficient worker and, instead, gives it to T2sux, then the inefficient worker has two choices. One, he can quit, which serves society more, but doesn't offer him much benefit. Or, he can get together with a few of his buddies and petition the gov't to make T2's benefits and pay less. I hope you guys can guess which one is worse.

Or he could just try to become a better worker...

And GMontag, how do you know seniority is better? If the employer seriously thinks that it means better work, than he would already give the OT to the guy that worked for a longer time. What need is there for a gov't to regulate this? If the employer chooses the less efficient one to work, then the EMPLOYER loses money! And so, the employer MUST choose the more efficient one to maximise profits. And, of course there is a method to measuring productivity. I make shirts. I make 2 shirts an hour. The next guy makes 3 shirts an hour. Who is more productive? Similarly, transcriptionist are hired because of words per minute, etc.

Seniority doesn't necessarily equate to being better, but is usually does mean greater experience in the position. And that experience more often than not produces a better employee. This isn't an absolute, as I'm sure there are many employees with high seniority who are really bad workers, but in general more experience leads to better employees.

And not all jobs can be measured for productivity and there can be different definitions of productivity. That guy making more shirts an hour, if his 3 shirts are of poorer quality than your 2, does that make him more or less productive? If someone came along who makes 5 really poor shirts an hour, is he a better worker? Which here is more productive: producing a greater number of poor-quality items or producing a fewer number of greater-quality items? Those questions are rhetorical, I only mean to show that the question of what makes a better worker is often not so black and white.

Quote from billking »

In any case, you're probably complaining because of the policy as opposed to the law. So quit your complaining, whiner.

Well as an employee, he has every right to not agree with a policy, so it's not really fair to call T2 a whiner. Even if he were only complaining about the company policy (which I'm not sure is the case here), he should voice his opinion to his employer. I doubt anything will change, as the law wouldn't allow it, but that's no reason not to voice your opinion.

And as I said before, this is a policy which really chaps your ass if you're the one with the least seniority, so he does have reason to be irritated somewhat.

ETA:

Quote from ProZachar »

There's also something to be said for (w)age discrimination. Why keep a "been here for 10 years and am now making 50% more than the starting wage" guy when you can lay him off and hire a new guy off the street and save some money? That's something unions like to stop, and I think their concern is warranted.

The problem with that is that an employer would be foolish to fire their workers with the most experience. The new workers may be cheaper, but in most cases, you get what you pay for. Those workers earning more are paid more for a reason, their experience makes things go much smoother and with fewer screw-ups. Plus, that'd cause some righteous bad word of mouth about that employer, and that's never good for business.

This really, really blows. Once Brainburst went premium, I stopped going there because you had to pay for the really good articles. That's not what I wanted to see happen with SCG. This is wicked sad.

I got the impression that whichever type they were bringing back would be one from a while back, not just relatively recently. Merfolk and Townsfolk were my first guesses, actually. Gnomes being a pretty cool possibility, too. Wasn't there a recent article on mtg.com where someone mentioned that if they ever did gnomes again, they'd be in red and not artifacts?

Dwarves may be likely, but they had their big revival in the Odyssey block. Orcs are a maybe, even though I'm not sure how they fit in a world filled with cities. Ogres just got brought back for Kamigawa, so they can't be it. Perhaps Rebels and Mercenaries? I doubt they'd ever revive the Rebels, but maybe Mercs, they weren't too broken. Or perhaps Dryads, not that they were ever popular. MaRo could've been talking about any one of hundreds of creature types. But at least something's getting revived.

Quote from T2sux »

The question is: Even if they are good enough workers to have made it as far as they have, does the fact that they have made it that far entitle them to benefits like being chosen for overtime over a better worker?

Yes, absolutely. As Senori said, they have made a larger contribution to the company as a whole. That bigger contribution, coupled with their greater experience, should entitle people with seniority to those benefits.

Quote from T2sux »

Shouldn't job security, more hours and better wages come from quality of work? The better wages you get from doing work at a place for 10 years is the incentive, yes, but they should be earned for the quality with which you accomplish your work, not how long you have been doing it.

Quality is more important than seniority, I agree, but in most competitive workplaces, you need to be good at your job in order to gain seniority. People who aren't working well aren't going to get far, and in my experience, those who have seniority have definately worked hard and paid their dues. That's not to say that everyone who has been working somewhere longer is automatically a better worker (I know many people who have been dedicated and determined right from the day they were hired because they felt they needed to proove themselves), but it's often difficult to survive long enough to gain seniority if you're not a good worker.

I'm not sure what kind of employer would keep dead weight around, especially if that person was guaranteed more hours than workers you'd deem better than the useless person with seniority. That person would be lowering the overall performance of your staff by being crappy and taking the place of someone who could do better. And I don't think there are many employers who would tolerate that for long.

Being on the bottom of the list and being passed over for stuff in favor of those with seniority, even when you feel you're doing better work, really sucks. I'm in that very boat. But I don't think it's that grave an injustice. I know the people above me are hard workers and have earned where they are, and they have recognized how hard a worker I am as well. Even though my position is mildly sucky, I am positive that in the not too distant future I'll have enough seniority to earn the same benefits for myself.

It operates much the same way at my work. Those who have been there for longer are guaranteed a certain amount of hours a week (44 hours to be exact) and are given first dibs on any overtime hours available. But the nature of my work (I serve large functions such as weddings, conventions, banquets and the like) means that in all likelihood, most (if not all) of our servers will be scheduled for any given function over a certain size. When fewer servers are needed, those shifts automatically go to the servers with more seniority so they can get their guaranteed weekly hours. Our union sealed this as a right for workers who stay with the company for a long time.

I personally see nothing at all wrong with this. It sucks when you're first starting off, but there needs to be some kind of benefit to keeping your job for a long time. It's the incentive to stick with a job, greater benefits that go along with seniority. For me, after a year of employment, all my benefits (medical, vacation, sick days etc) double, I get a $1.25 raise and I become eligible for guaranteed hours (as a part-timer, I'm only guaranteed 20 hours a week while full-timers get the full 44). So even though I'm very low on the totem pole right now, I know that if I stick with it I'll eventually gain seniority and the benefits that go along with it. As hours are assigned, our managers ensure those with guaranteed hours get them first, then extra hours are assigned starting with the person with the most seniority then working down the list.

And seniority doesn't mean a worker can slack off, at least it shouldn't. At my work, those who aren't pulling their weight are fired, even if that person has been with us for a decade. To stay you need to work hard, regardless of your seniority.

But if a person cannot gain some sort of benefit (be it job security, more hours, better wage, etc) from staying in one job for a long time, what incentive is there for that person to stay at that job over any other?

While I don't think the situation is near as dire as some would have us believe, I still don't think reducing dangerous emmissions is a bad idea. Whether or not you believe industry-related elevations of carbon in the atmosphere will have catastrophic consequences or not, you must agree that high levels of pollution in the air can't possibly be a good thing. Just look at the thick smog clouds that blanket cities like Los Angeles and Toronto, smog is undoubtedly caused by human activity like cars, factories and the like. And that smog does have adverse effects on our health, especially if a person already has breathing problems. Reducing pollution in general is a great thing in my mind, and if it averts a possible catastophe that may or may not happen, all the better. Better safe than sorry, I suppose. Global warming may very well be a big overreaction, I haven't enough research on the subject myself to say one way or the other, but if it isn't we do need to do something about it. If that solution will also solve other pollution-related issues, even better.

Just popping in to say that X-Men Legends (which I think is the new X-Men game that was mentioned here) completely rocks. I love it so much. I love it more than San Andreas sometimes. It's really just very good. First game to ever really capture the feeling of the X-Men being an actual team. I picked it up after Christmas and haven't put it down for more than two days since.

Quote from Stax »

My very own fanboy!!! *forgets he's male as well* DANCE!!!

Hee!! How's a dancing banana for you?



No? How about a dancing lock?

Still no good? Fine, guess I'll put on my dancing shoes.


Hee!

Now as for the topic ..... yes, I agree with Stax. A man marrying a man won't blow up the world, reduce marriage as an institution to shambles or somehow cause harm to anyone, so I say let 'em have at it.

Mmmm, someone said ice cream.

I totally fine with women going topless where men go topless. Beaches and whatnot are fine. But I don't think women are asking to be able to go topless at work or anything, so I don't have any problems with it. I personally ascribe myself to the European mindset of sexual freedom, hiding things only make them more taboo. I just think it's funny when people go crazy over a visible boob, like it'll make your eyes pop or something. Reminds me of the "Bebe's Boobs" episode of South Park. Hee.