The methods of conversion

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
NO, realist.

In case you haven't figured it out yet.

Age and experience grants you that if you can face reality.

Dude. I like you. I still do. You decided I was an enemy because I posted scientific studies on gays. Can we patch this thing up. I really think we have some things in common. You're an excellent writer and you post some interesting things. I'm willing to overlook your faults.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Dude. I like you. I still do. You decided I was an enemy because I posted scientific studies on gays.

Actually, you decided to BE an enemy by all the flaming. If we disagree, we are both going to continue to point out the evidence supporting our opinions. That is always going to be the case when we are convinced.

I have no problem being friends with people who disagree with me. I have a lot of problem being friends with someone who flames me at will for fun.

Can we patch this thing up. I really think we have some things in common. You're an excellent writer and you post some interesting things. I'm willing to overlook your faults.

As soon as I start to read your posts you get a clean slate until the post proves to be a flame at me which may be uncalled for. In this case, you have already redeemed yourself before I could finish.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Actually, you decided to BE an enemy by all the flaming. If we disagree, we are both going to continue to point out the evidence supporting our opinions. That is always going to be the case when we are convinced.

I have no problem being friends with people who disagree with me. I have a lot of problem being friends with someone who flames me at will for fun.



As soon as I start to read your posts you get a clean slate until the post proves to be a flame at me which may be uncalled for. In this case, you have already redeemed yourself before I could finish.

Well you should expect a little something, something from time to time just to keep you on your toes!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
sure you can jim, we see it on a weekly basis here.

how many people do you see post about the lies, slander, bias, and hate of the liberals?

Some of these people choose to be conservatives or republicans because of it. The reverse also holds true.

Someone might not choose to be a 'liberal' because they believe in the liberal issues, but they can choose not to be 'conservative' because they see the visceral attitudes exhibited by said group.

Let's look at this from one example - taxes. There is a big difference between the way conservatives and liberals view the way our tax system should be. So you're saying that someone will change their perspective on how taxes should be because of the way some conservatives present themselves? I think you either support a particular system or you don't. I don't see how the actions of a particular affiliation could change your mind about how the system should be.

What if you're against abortion. Do you change your stance there as well because you don't like the way others protest abortions? No, you're still against abortion - you just choose not to go about making changes in the same manner.

I just don't see how someone can be swayed in their beliefs because of the way others express themselves.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Let's look at this from one example - taxes. There is a big difference between the way conservatives and liberals view the way our tax system should be. So you're saying that someone will change their perspective on how taxes should be because of the way some conservatives present themselves? I think you either support a particular system or you don't. I don't see how the actions of a particular affiliation could change your mind about how the system should be.

What if you're against abortion. Do you change your stance there as well because you don't like the way others protest abortions? No, you're still against abortion - you just choose not to go about making changes in the same manner.

I just don't see how someone can be swayed in their beliefs because of the way others express themselves.

It has been MY experience, that people generally make emotional decisions before logical ones. For some it works out good, and for others, not so good.

I tend to be incredibly logical with only anger being my emotional reaction to anything. My wife is very much an emotional person. Her thinking is mostly based off of emotion. In general, I have been told the sexes tend to divide this way.

The issue I have seen is that when someone who is more emotional encounters resistance, they shut down to the source of that resistance. -In this case, a group with a common trait. In the case of a logic driven person, instead of doing that, the issues would be picked apart.

Both are good skills, but each person has their own set of skills. It would be a valid argument, I think, that we DO need to be more solution oriented (as opposed to reacting emotionally) if we want to bring a wide audience to the table.

For the record, it has taken me 10+ years to accept the fact that people DO think emotionally, and I am still working on it.

 

[winston churchi]

I used to be a liberal which I have mentioned many times before. I changed because my life changed and how I viewed the world changed. While I was a liberal, I was one of the few in this place in New York I lived who consisted of what I thought (and was correct) asshole republicans. They were and I am sure, still are liberal bashers.

While a liberal though, I did take leisure in slaundering the conservatives...to me ... they were all about 'me me me' and not 'America'.

But I have long sinced changed my views and I would certainly not change them due to what others say or do. You cannot live your life that way. To me changing your views because of what others say is perhaps someone who was never quite comfortable where they were in the first place....I changed because my life changed, my point of view changed and liberalism did not make any sense to me anymore and to me, liberals became a group of whinning children. Let the murderers free because they didn't mean it, give more welfare out, allow all the illegals in and ensure they have well paying jobs, healthcare to everyone...bla bla bla.

It is odd that you say your wife changed because of the slander on a website...when the very person she intends to vote for is all about slander....strange?

So I would not beleive that is the reason for her change...I am sure she is smarter than that...I am sure that, as her life changed, her views did and do....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
It has been MY experience, that people generally make emotional decisions before logical ones. For some it works out good, and for others, not so good.

I tend to be incredibly logical with only anger being my emotional reaction to anything. My wife is very much an emotional person. Her thinking is mostly based off of emotion. In general, I have been told the sexes tend to divide this way.

The issue I have seen is that when someone who is more emotional encounters resistance, they shut down to the source of that resistance. -In this case, a group with a common trait. In the case of a logic driven person, instead of doing that, the issues would be picked apart.

Both are good skills, but each person has their own set of skills. It would be a valid argument, I think, that we DO need to be more solution oriented (as opposed to reacting emotionally) if we want to bring a wide audience to the table.

For the record, it has taken me 10+ years to accept the fact that people DO think emotionally, and I am still working on it.

But when people react emotionally to a logical argument is when things get bad. Or when people feel wrong they get mad. I've seen this for over ten years, and it's something we should work to correct, not just accept and learn to manipulate for our own ends.

 

[OCA]

Interesting topic.

My mind has been changed 180 degrees this week, not on the issues per say but rather that complete and total partisanship and the refusal to analytically look at what the other side is offering and then to immediately flame such side is the actual real problem in America. I'm not saying that we've got to kiss each other but as we can see from the Clinton impeachment hearings just because 1 side controls the congress doesn't mean that they can ramrod through everything they want. I'm a conservative, always have been and up until recently I thought that almost all things that libs stand for are shit. But I do happen to agree with them on a few issues as we all know by now and when I express that i'm jumped on like a lion on an antelope without any explaining or reasoning at all, just that i'm unAmerican and racist against whites. Now can somebody tell me how thats conducive to America if that is whats happening in Washington? Calling all Demos socialists is the same as them calling all republicans nazi right wing zealots, it only caters to a small portion of the party. This country was founded on differing political views and it is that which makes this country great not the other way around. For those that suggest otherwise I suggest that maybe America isn't the place for ya.

I do agree that we are entering a perilous place in our country's history, its not going to be terrorism that brings us down or any foriegn nation but social issues and our inability to compromise on some of them and the lines that they create that will be the eventual ruin of America.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

OCA. There is logic to criticism of Affirmative Action. It violates the individual rights of white individuals. We all have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of our skin color.

 

[winston churchi]

No body can be one hundred percent conservative or liberal.

For me, I am for abortion....not because of a womans right to choose but because perhaps she was a victim of rape ... in the end...who knows what situation she is in and who are we to judge? Its my opinon and it differs from conservatives.

I am for affirmative action....I know I will get a lot of slack for that ... why? Companies are not fair to begin with so to assume that a company hires someone based on their knowlegdge but rather on who they know (or who they slept with!)...if that were the case, wouldn't the world be a better place? So instead, since you not hiring based on anything but favourtism, then you should have to open your doors to different ethnic groups.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
OCA. There is logic to criticism of Affirmative Action. It violates the individual rights of white individuals. We all have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of our skin color.

You see your logic was well noted at the beginning, I don't happen to agree with it but it was acknowleged by me several times that it does have some merit. You on the other hand wanted to have no part in a mature, logical discussion on the issue, I was a racist, against white people and that was all there is to it. Tell me how that is conducive and is a plus to a better America?

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
OCA. There is logic to criticism of Affirmative Action. It violates the individual rights of white individuals. We all have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of our skin color.

The problem with that to me is....take a major company in America...you have skills to perform this job and you can turn it around to a massive profit, but instead they hire an eighteen year old fresh out of school because they are neighbors to the h.r. dept. head....or someone owes someone a favour...or whatever the reason...you are frustrated? They didn't hire fairly, they never do anymore...how many jobs do these days? They hire based on the dumbest reasons...perhaps the interviewee reminded them of themselves???
At anyrate, my argument is that - companies dont hire the best person for the job....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
You see your logic was well noted at the beginning, I don't happen to agree with it but it was acknowleged by me several times that it does have some merit. You on the other hand wanted to have no part in a mature, logical discussion on the issue, I was a racist, against white people and that was all there is to it. Tell me how that is conducive and is a plus to a better America?

What part of the logic don't you agree with?

It is race based discrimination. You just must not agree that all individuals have a right not to be victims of this kind of discrimination. It's conducive to a better america, because maybe if we discuss it enough in the public forum we can eliminate the practice from society. Please don't freak out oca, but where do you disagree with the logic.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by winston churchi
The problem with that to me is....take a major company in America...you have skills to perform this job and you can turn it around to a massive profit, but instead they hire an eighteen year old fresh out of school because they are neighbors to the h.r. dept. head....or someone owes someone a favour...or whatever the reason...you are frustrated? They didn't hire fairly, they never do anymore...how many jobs do these days? They hire based on the dumbest reasons...perhaps the interviewee reminded them of themselves???
At anyrate, my argument is that - companies dont hire the best person for the job....

But they should; that's my point. And the company loses when they do that. Because companies don't always hire the best person does not justify forced racial discrimination by the state. It's umm, like, an orthogonal issue.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
What part of the logic don't you agree with?

It is race based discrimination. You just must not agree that all individuals have a right not to be victims of this kind of discrimination. It's conducive to a better america, because maybe if we discuss it enough in the public forum we can eliminate the practice from society. Please don't freak out oca, but where do you disagree with the logic.

The logic is flawed because white people simply are not discriminated against in the private sector. When A.A. was enacted way back when Republicans and Demos alike knew what the deal was going to be, there would be hiring based upon race yes, but on a rotational basis just like they do at the Post Office for example. They very well could've said well whites have been shitting on minorities for 200+ years so we are not going to hire whites for 200+ years but no they didn't set it up that way because that would be cruel and unusual punishment for a lack of better words. Listen the whole reasoning behind it is to stop the excesses and advantages that the majority had displayed to the minority throughout American history, whites had always said we're gonna stop it we'll be good but on our own we never did, it was lip service so the feds stepped in and said ok we might not be able to change your minds personally on race but by god you are going to give these people a chance or find yourself doing some time and hit with some hefty fines. By and large it has worked for the bettermebt of America in my opinion as the education, financial and quality of life levels have been raised substantially since this was enacted.

Whites still own most of the wealth and almost all the positions of power here so claims of discrimination are ludicrous since i've yet to see one white in America made to go pick cotton and get whipped or lynched.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by OCA
The logic is flawed because white people simply are not discriminated against in the private sector. When A.A. was enacted way back when Republicans and Demos alike knew what the deal was going to be, there would be hiring based upon race yes, but on a rotational basis just like they do at the Post Office for example. They very well could've said well whites have been shitting on minorities for 200+ years so we are not going to hire whites for 200+ years but no they didn't set it up that way because that would be cruel and unusual punishment for a lack of better words. Listen the whole reasoning behind it is to stop the excesses and advantages that the majority had displayed to the minority throughout American history, whites had always said we're gonna stop it we'll be good but on our own we never did, it was lip service so the feds stepped in and said ok we might not be able to change your minds personally on race but by god you are going to give these people a chance or find yourself doing some time and hit with some hefty fines. By and large it has worked for the bettermebt of America in my opinion as the education, financial and quality of life levels have been raised substantially since this was enacted.

Whites still own most of the wealth and almost all the positions of power here so claims of discrimination are ludicrous since i've yet to see one white in America made to go pick cotton and get whipped or lynched.

Questioning because of my own lack of knowledge, is the rotational thing a requirement in the private sector? My understanding was that a percentage had to be met and that the rotational practice was mostly for government situations.

 

[5stringJeff]

DK, I think we could agree that the board's tone has been friendlier in the past. I also understand where you are coming from. I am no fan of flaming, and I would also rather debate the issues instead of calling people commies, sociailists, neo-cons, etc. I would really rather that everyone else on the board stick to the issues and leave the name-calling for the Yahoo boards - but I understand that everyone is different, and not everyone shares my outlook on life.

Personally, though, I'm about tired of the flaming. Unfortunately, I'm not in much of a position to do anything about it.

KL, as a fairly outspoken conservative, I hope that you can look past the incessant flaming of a few and see the underlying beliefs of conservatism that the rest of us are trying to defend. Just as we on the Right have people like Spilly and Bully to deal with, we also have intellegent liberals like DK, Aquarian, acludem and PJ that will actually discuss issues. I certainly hope that the rude personalities some people have has not turned you completely off to the conservative viewpoint.

Anyway, enough from me.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Questioning because of my own lack of knowledge, is the rotational thing a requirement in the private sector? My understanding was that a percentage had to be met and that the rotational practice was mostly for government situations.

I believe that in the private sector your company has to have a minimum level of employees or if your company is operating on any type of government loan or grant. It does not effect the guy who owns a little restauraunt with 7 employees however. He'd have to blatantly, pretty much verbally violate the EEOC act to get himself in hot water.

Yeah the rotational deal is all government positions and contracts I believe. In the private sector its percentage based is my understanding.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Affirmative Action discriminates against them. They may or may not be discriminated against without it. But with it, they definitely ARE being discriminated against actively by force of law.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Affirmative Action discriminates against them. They may or may not be discriminated against without it. But with it, they definitely ARE being discriminated against actively by force of law.

American history, recent American history says they have been and will be discriminated against in all theatres of life. A.A. does not discriminate against them it levels the playing field, it is my opinion that some whites don't want a level playing field for whatever reason.

I fail to see the logic where they are being discriminated against by act of law.