Print Page | Close Window

Interesting conversation

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185117
Printed Date: 10 March 2026 at 6:23pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Interesting conversation
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: Interesting conversation
Date Posted: 02 April 2010 at 10:10pm
Went to a coffee house for a quick caffine fix and sat down and overheard an interesting conversation. A group of what I assume were college types were discussing the positive points of a new proposed additional tobacco tax. I listened as the stated that they needed to protect smokers from themselves. At that point I chimed in with how 'vice' taxes have always been a 'backdoor' tax on the poor, and always for thier own good. One stated that tobacco is bad for health and needed to be taxed. I then stated what if a "Starbuck's Tax' was impossed on expensive coffee drinks, caffine is also known to present health risks. The looks from these people was a classic, 'What tax me for my behavior' look as they responded that was 'stupid'. I asked why they were willing to pay $4-5 dollars per coffee specialty drink but to have an additional tax on those drinks to help society was 'stupid'.

I love the coffee shops of Oneonta, a college town full of what appears to be self-rightous college types, more than willing to tax anyone but themselves. And this is not the first conversations of this type I have listened to as I have 1ea standard 16oz coffee with 2 sugar for $1.25 at these coffee shops.

-------------



Replies:
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 02 April 2010 at 10:27pm
sounds like a typical college town upstate. new paltz is similar...be on the lookout for a smug alert in the area, it might be best to just avoid it


Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 02 April 2010 at 11:45pm
Smug on both sides of a conversation.

Nice

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.


Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 12:14am
Who are these mythical people? I'm a college student in what is essentially a college town, and have a ton of friends and acquaintances in this town and others that should be like this but aren't. Really, who the hell says these things?

-------------


Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 6:25am
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Smug on both sides of a conversation.

Word. Apparently it isn't self-righteous to eavesdrop, then interject and impose oneself onto the conversation,  provide a counterpoint (that isn't logically parallel, mind you; the disparity between caffeine and tobacco as far as addictiveness and effects on health is huge, and caffeine is healthy in moderation while tobacco offers no benefit whatsoever), then go on the internets and post about how one made a group of college kids look stupid.

All the while having been nanny'd by the state for a significant portion of your life (you are entitled, yes, but is a baby not entitled to care from its caregivers?). Nice.


-------------


Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 7:45am
Well, this thread only goes downhill from here...

But yeah, on the one hand the great majority of folks I know in school haven't quite achieved the head-ass fit OS is describing, but on the other hand I'm sure we all know at least a few...


-------------
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.


Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 10:11am
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Smug on both sides of a conversation.

Word. Apparently it isn't self-righteous to eavesdrop, then interject and impose oneself onto the conversation,  provide a counterpoint (that isn't logically parallel, mind you; the disparity between caffeine and tobacco as far as addictiveness and effects on health is huge, and caffeine is healthy in moderation while tobacco offers no benefit whatsoever), then go on the internets and post about how one made a group of college kids look stupid.

All the while having been nanny'd by the state for a significant portion of your life (you are entitled, yes, but is a baby not entitled to care from its caregivers?). Nice.


I agree that you can't say caffeine is just as dangerous as tobacco but the comparison OS made isn't making that point (at least I hope). What he's trying to convey is the idea that the government shouldn't be making the choice to use that substance for you. They should certainly inform people of the dangers and even discourage its use but why tax it? And if you do, why stop there? Why not tax everything else that could be dangerous? Who gets to decide what is dangerous enough to tax and how much? I'm not trying to say that this is a sign of the apocalypse but I also don't think it's a good thing. I just don't think the government needs to intervene when people are only hurting themselves. If people know the consequences but they do it anyway (and only they are affected) then let them hurt themselves. It's their choice and sometimes natural selection needs to be left to do its job. Although, the shift from private health care insurance to public will make these people more of a burden on society than before so maybe you can sort of make the argument now that they are indeed hurting others in a way. I think this was part of the reason so many people opposed the recent reforms.


-------------
oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland

Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey

Me: But only if they're hungary

Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth


Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 2:14pm
Something about germany


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 2:17pm
The effects of coffee and nicotine on the body are in no way comparable, health-wise.




Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 3:43pm
How about instead of taxing tobacco, we stop allowing tobacco companies to outright lie in their advertising?

I'm pretty sure after another generation or two, it wouldn't be the big deal that it is now.


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 5:01pm
If it's so bad that we have to tax it to protect people from it, why not just ban it?

-------------


Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 5:10pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

If it's so bad that we have to tax it to protect people from it, why not just ban it?


America, freedom, communist


Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 5:40pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

If it's so bad that we have to tax it to protect people from it, why not just ban it?


OK, this is only mildly related, but in my head I got from one to the other.

Why not stop subsidizing fuel costs so that Americans are pressed towards alternative fuels?

Simply put, if people are forced to see issues as "pay more, or pay less", they will generally head towards the cheaper option.

Why they've gone for vice taxes instead of telling the FDA to ban tobacco, I don't know.  OK, that's not true, I do know: because the tobacco lobby makes a ton of money, and the US government can get some money off of it too.  It's stupid.


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 5:49pm
Well and good luck banning tobacco while people are fighting for the legalization of some, or in some cases, all drugs. Freedom of choice is a big thing worldwide, and turning back on the decision of tobacco (considering its historical role) is just not going to happen.

Everyone knows its bad for them, its their choice to start or not. Lack of information or education isn't to blame, its the individual. That said, the financial and political workings of the industry are pretty shady.


Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 7:43pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

'vice' taxes have always been a 'backdoor' tax on the poor, a


Oh really? How?


-------------
Que pasa?




Posted By: Zata
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 8:50pm
Who cares.  They're probably making a thread on a forum about you.


Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 10:25pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

'vice' taxes have always been a 'backdoor' tax on the poor, a


Oh really? How?

A general explanation is related to the percentages of income that the wealthy spend on such vices compared to the less wealthy.  While they may use the same amount, it tends to affect the poor more.  Other factors such as socio-economic indicators that certain vices are actually more prevalent among those with low-incomes are also a factor as well.  (However, as was pointed out above, if someone chooses to spend money on such things, then it is their choice.  So in effect, they are choosing to be taxed.)

(My apologies, not the best explanation, but it does cover the basics.  I am just not motivated to go into the whole thing right now.)


-------------


Posted By: ¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 11:15pm
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

  the disparity between caffeine and tobacco as far as addictiveness and effects on health is huge, and caffeine is healthy in moderation while tobacco offers no benefit whatsoever)


Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

The effects of coffee and nicotine on the body are in no way comparable, health-wise.




These.


-------------


Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 12:11am

I can actually see OS's point here. While there may be huge differences in the effects on your health between caffeine and cigs, it's the attitude that "I don't use this or have any need for it, so let's tax it". Rather than attacking the issue at hand, I think he's attacking their logic.

It's just like the gun control debate. Someone always winds up telling my that I simply don't need a semi-auto version of an AK or M-16, and that in some way aids their argument against me owning it. But apply that to logic to, say, a motorcycle, which I also don't need and is dangerous (though, of course, we get back to degrees but that's insignificant to the logic I'm attacking), suddenly it sounds crazy.
 
For most of us it's much easier to see the logic in something that doesn't affect us than something that is a part of our daily lives. It's like the short-lived movement among some politicians to try and tighten up controls on the video game industry. I'd be willing to bet that those who fought so hard against GTA had probably never even picked up a gaming controller, yet they've attached a definite value, legality, and label to something they know only through flawed statistics.
 
That said, I'm all for taxing cigarettes, or alcohol, or video games, or cars, or whatever. Money's gotta come from somewhere, the country wants things and things aren't cheap.
 
 


Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 12:56am
A few get it, if you are rich say making 60K a year and buy a carton of cigaettes a week, or you are 'poor' making 17K a year and buying a carton a week who is paying a higher percentage of thier income to cigarette taxes. "Vice" products are the poor mans means of an 'escape', alcohol abuse is more of an issue with the 'poor', as well as tobacco consumption. It is just simple to see that the 'poor' pay a higher percentage of thier income to these 'taxes' than the more affluant in our society. It is not sterotyping, but give the poor a 'check' and one of the first stops is the liquor store for smokes and the drink of fancy. Thier means to 'escape' thier situation.

Raising taxes on vice items, will work just as well as raising taxes on gasoline. The higher gas tax was supposed to 'slow' down the use, but people just payed the taxes and kept driving and more cars are on the road now than 1973 when the first 'fuel crisis' raised the price of a gallon to over $1.00 a gallon.

These kids were all for raising taxes on the backs of anyone but themselves, that was the infuriating point.

-------------


Posted By: bravecoward
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 10:37am
its like being on the forum, except in real life

-------------


Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 1:53pm
Well tax the people smoking because might as well get all the money out of them before they die. We don't want that money going to waste, do we?


Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 2:32pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

A few get it, if you are rich say making 60K a year and buy a carton of cigaettes a week, or you are 'poor' making 17K a year and buying a carton a week who is paying a higher percentage of thier income to cigarette taxes. "Vice" products are the poor mans means of an 'escape', alcohol abuse is more of an issue with the 'poor', as well as tobacco consumption. It is just simple to see that the 'poor' pay a higher percentage of thier income to these 'taxes' than the more affluant in our society. It is not sterotyping, but give the poor a 'check' and one of the first stops is the liquor store for smokes and the drink of fancy. Thier means to 'escape' thier situation.

Citation needed.

No, I think it is until you back up these claims with some real numbers. Even then I still find it a stereotype to lump all the poor in with alcoholics and chain smokers.



-------------


Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 2:53pm
Working in a liquor store, yes lots of poorer people drink, but easily as many well off people drink. As for smoking I'd say it's either dead even or possibly even the other way, that those with more money buy more cigarettes.

No numbers to back it up, just thinking about what I see each day. I am curious about the numbers though.


Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 4:12pm
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/3/4/6/p93460_index.html - http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/3/4/6/p93460_index.html

-------------


Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 4:20pm
OS, that's about education, not monetary income.


Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 8:05pm

I aggree with OS on this one to a certain extent.

Not that tobacco should/shouldnt be taxed more/less or how bad/good tobacco/caffiene is. I find it amusing how OS turned the situation into the students perspective and all of a sudden it is blasphemy.
 
Since going to college, Ive learned that there a good number of whiney opinionated know-it-all types around, who are often quite ignorant.


-------------


Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 8:07pm
They had to have been Hartwick students. 

-------------
?



Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 8:24pm
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I can actually see OS's point here....and things aren't cheap.


SUPER DUPER THIS.


-------------


Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 9:12pm
Originally posted by SSOK SSOK wrote:


Since going to college, Ive learned that there a good number of whiney opinionated know-it-all types around, who are often quite ignorant.


Apparently those don't exist anywhere else in the world.

Where does this college stereotype come from?


-------------
Que pasa?




Posted By: NiQ-Toto
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 9:35pm
Stoney-onta? Big weed school.

And since ive been at college, a pack of cigs has gone from like $4.50 to $8.00. I dont know why, but i thought it was due to state taxes going up...

I dont smoke anymore but i bought a chick a pack of newports last weekend and it was like $9.50 out the door. Whats with that? Vice tax? I say tax cigs, tax fast food, tax soda. Maybe then, people will start to eat healthier but i dont know if that will affect the overall national weight average.

I dont want to say it but... tax booze too, just to be fair to the other vices. (im more against this than the other ones, but hey, gotta play fair right?)

-------------
///AMG What?


Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 10:08pm
You want taxed booze, come to Canada, where our alcohol cost 2x what it does in the states. 6 pack of budweiser = almost $13


Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 10:18pm
Ahh, but you also get free healthcare to go with that booze xD


Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 05 April 2010 at 12:32am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

A few get it, if you are rich say making 60K a year and buy a carton of cigaettes a week, or you are 'poor' making 17K a year and buying a carton a week who is paying a higher percentage of thier income to cigarette taxes.


Wait a minute, 60k/year is considered rich? I'd say that's decent but I don't think that would be enough to make you rich, especially if you have to support a family. For somebody not supporting a family that'd be pretty good though.


-------------
oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland

Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey

Me: But only if they're hungary

Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth


Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:44am
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

Ahh, but you also get free healthcare to go with that booze xD


Meh, pay taxes for it, but fine by me. The fact I can break my femur and show up to the hospital and get it taken care of gives me good peace of mind.


Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 05 April 2010 at 11:29am
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by SSOK SSOK wrote:


Since going to college, Ive learned that there a good number of whiney opinionated know-it-all types around, who are often quite ignorant.


Apparently those don't exist anywhere else in the world.

Where does this college stereotype come from?
Most opinionated types (use your best friend FE as an example) usually have some real world expierence to back up their pompous "im right" attitude, where as the only taste of the real world most college students have is highschool, MTV, and working at McDonalds.


-------------


Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 April 2010 at 11:49am
Life expieriance does seem to trump college students armed with a concept thrown at them by a proffesor. The addage of those who can not do, teach is no more apparent the in colleges. For example in a Bussiness class I used my expieriance and actual 'book's as the basis of my paper. I made a profit every year, and in the face of rising costs, yet I got a 'C', and the prof noted that this 'plan' was not realilistic. I asked what expieriance he had in running a bussiness and guess what, he never ran a bussiness, just teaches how to.
I can imagine what the profs in a more left leaning school here in the Northeast as passing of as reality. The funniest one was my Socialogy Prof in Nebraska explaining the 'third world' to me and the class, and her version of 'third world' travels was Colorado. The Government troops were bad in Central America, but the Che Guevara types she fancied were far worse in the atrocity approach than the Government troops ever dreamed. BTDT got the T-Shirt.

Yes, sometimes personal expieriance trumps book learnin.

-------------


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 April 2010 at 1:27pm


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:00pm
Originally posted by SSOK SSOK wrote:

where as the only taste of the real world most college students have is highschool, MTV, and working at McDonalds.


lolwhat?


-------------
Que pasa?




Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 05 April 2010 at 4:24pm
^^^ Seemed self-explanatory to me.

On a related note, I had a conversation a few semesters ago with a fellow student whose college job is working at McDonalds.  He was whining about the pay and how bad the job sucked when I asked him why he didn't just quit and get another job. His reply was that it was the best he could find at the time.

He didn't understand when I said something along the lines of ". . . and that's why they don't have to pay more."  (At least he wasn't a business major.)*

*I think he was in the Ed program.


-------------


Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 05 April 2010 at 7:40pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Life expieriance does seem to trump college students armed with a concept thrown at them by a proffesor. The addage of those who can not do, teach is no more apparent the in colleges. For example in a Bussiness class I used my expieriance and actual 'book's as the basis of my paper. I made a profit every year, and in the face of rising costs, yet I got a 'C', and the prof noted that this 'plan' was not realilistic. I asked what expieriance he had in running a bussiness and guess what, he never ran a bussiness, just teaches how to.
I can imagine what the profs in a more left leaning school here in the Northeast as passing of as reality. The funniest one was my Socialogy Prof in Nebraska explaining the 'third world' to me and the class, and her version of 'third world' travels was Colorado. The Government troops were bad in Central America, but the Che Guevara types she fancied were far worse in the atrocity approach than the Government troops ever dreamed. BTDT got the T-Shirt.

Yes, sometimes personal expieriance trumps book learnin.


Pick a better business school.

I know that many of our business school's professors have cars waiting before and after class to take them back to their offices downtown, and the reason we have the most expensive business school ever built is because, well, we're good at running businesses.


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 06 April 2010 at 12:22am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

The addage of those who can not do, teach is no more apparent the in colleges.

...which may seem to be the case until you consider the fact that many people in the upper echelons of academia are in fact very active in their respective fields.


-------------


Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 April 2010 at 3:18am
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

The addage of those who can not do, teach is no more apparent the in colleges.

...which may seem to be the case until you consider the fact that many people in the upper echelons of academia are in fact very active in their respective fields.


I'm pretty sure that adage is supposed to apply to people who didn't do any work to begin teaching, in other words not the people who pursued PhDs.


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 April 2010 at 8:00am
Saying all professors are lousy is the same as saying ALL homeschoolers are lousy.
 
Sure there are some nuts on the tree, but some are good nuts. I like fresh pecans for example.
 
 
My sister was a part time film professor at USC (now she homeschools her 4 kids), her huge amount of experience would impress any film student, plus she knows how to get work in the field, which is the key to success in film. I had many professors, who were OK, but not great. They could teach you book knowledge, but the teachers that have actual experience in the field you are studying are the key.
 
Now that I am older, I would be much more picky about the professors I selected... Too bad I already have my degree, but for your younger folks, make sure your professor has experience in the field they are teaching, if they don't transfer to a different class, the real world knowledge is key.
 
 
I think college is key to teaching critical thinking skills. Not that high school couldn't... But, I don't know many that do, most teach to the test, while giving you the proper answer in multiple choice forms... That isn't learning but regurgitating temporary memory, which typically fades with the test results.
 
Being able to think about things, and look at multiple issues and how the results come from these issues and create solutions is the key to a good education.
 
As a country, we are already taxed too much. The sooner you realize that government and education ALWAYS want more of your money. The better off you will be to stand against their assault on your checkbook.
 
 
Because they will sell it as "for the children, or elderly" when in fact they just want even MORE of your money so they can waste it...
 
And that is why I am a member of the TEA party. But, they don't teach that in school... hmm because they need your money... See the conflict of interests?


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 April 2010 at 10:51am
indoctrination education example.
 
 
http://kathleenmckinley.com/2010/04/05/school-propaganda-in-texas.aspx?results=1#SurveyResultsChart - http://kathleenmckinley.com/2010/04/05/school-propaganda-in-texas.aspx?results=1#SurveyResultsChart


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 06 April 2010 at 12:15pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by SSOK SSOK wrote:

where as the only taste of the real world most college students have is highschool, MTV, and working at McDonalds.


lolwhat?
Look at Macks seinor citizen thread. If you still cant understand me, learn english.
 
Edit: FE, we get it, you hate Obama. Dont drag it into this thread too.


-------------


Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 April 2010 at 12:20pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 
Now that I am older, I would be much more picky about the professors I selected... Too bad I already have my degree, but for your younger folks, make sure your professor has experience in the field they are teaching, if they don't transfer to a different class, the real world knowledge is key.


From personal experience, I would totally agree.  The professors I've had who've spent significant time in industry generally present material that is more interesting and more challenging than those who are life long academics.
 
Quote I think college is key to teaching critical thinking skills. Not that high school couldn't... But, I don't know many that do, most teach to the test, while giving you the proper answer in multiple choice forms... That isn't learning but regurgitating temporary memory, which typically fades with the test results.
 
Being able to think about things, and look at multiple issues and how the results come from these issues and create solutions is the key to a good education.


Again, absolutely.  For most people, it's not about the skills you learn in college (although being in science, engineering, medicine, and I'm sure other areas it is somewhat about them).
 
Quote As a country, we are already taxed too much. The sooner you realize that government and education ALWAYS want more of your money. The better off you will be to stand against their assault on your checkbook.
 
Because they will sell it as "for the children, or elderly" when in fact they just want even MORE of your money so they can waste it...
 
And that is why I am a member of the TEA party. But, they don't teach that in school... hmm because they need your money... See the conflict of interests?


I don't think it's that black and white.  The reality is that the money you pay out does have some effect.  To me, the question of taxes is not one of paying a lot or a little, but on deciding what services we need and how to maximize the value for our money.

I think our bureaucratic system needs some major reworking before that is possible though, and I don't see that happening in the near future.


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 06 April 2010 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

indoctrination education example.
 
 
http://kathleenmckinley.com/2010/04/05/school-propaganda-in-texas.aspx?results=1#SurveyResultsChart - http://kathleenmckinley.com/2010/04/05/school-propaganda-in-texas.aspx?results=1#SurveyResultsChart
I fail to see how this is so offensive? Granted, I am admittedly bias, but who isn't. Historically, conservatives are slower to change and do look at the world and people with a more pessimistic viewpoint. Liberals do tend to hope for the best in people, sometimes to a naive level, but I don't think the poster was incorrect about that information.
If you are getting your panties all up in a bunch about the little angel being by the liberals and the little devil being by conservatives, you fail at understanding the context of the picture. Again, liberals tend to have a more optimistic view of people. We tend to think of people as good in general, the angel is a metaphor for how we tend to think of people as being good overall. The little devil was a metaphor for how conservatives tend to view people, no, not as Satan, but liberals don't actually think of people as angels either. Conservatives tend to view people as very flawed and very prone to making errors. Typically holding the masses in a lower regard than the average liberal.
 
I'm not trying to say either one is right or wrong, honestly, I feel both sides often take it too far. I'm just explaining the rhetoric behind the images. It's not calling liberals angels and conservatives devils, it's an exaggerated idea related more toward their general view of people. Now, can the poster be misinterpreted? Yes, of course, all documents/images can be. But I seriously doubt that was the intention of the creators.


-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 April 2010 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by SSOK SSOK wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by SSOK SSOK wrote:

where as the only taste of the real world most college students have is highschool, MTV, and working at McDonalds.


lolwhat?
Look at Macks seinor citizen thread. If you still cant understand me, learn english.


My point is that isn't the only taste of the real world most college kids have..


-------------
Que pasa?





Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net