Ideological Flaw?
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=189648
Printed Date: 16 December 2025 at 8:56pm Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ideological Flaw?
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Subject: Ideological Flaw?
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 3:01pm
|
Ok, so I was thinking about something this morning and my mind wandered onto the subject of illegal immigration. It occurred to me that in a sense it is strange since most conservatives that want to corral all the illegals up and banish them are also staunch advocates of a hands off of business government. Isn't this somewhat against the aspirations of the pro corporate/anti union Republican party? I mean what better way to bust unions than to have a bunch of people in the U.S. willing to work for pennies on the dollar? You wouldn't have to move jobs overseas, you could do it right here. By the same token, the liberals seem to advocate for leniency, but again doesn't the import of cheap help undermine their union deathgrip on the U.S. by importing people that have no interest whatsoever in joining a union? Seems like both sides of the argument are more or less on the wrong side of the argument to support their agenda.
I know this is a simplification of the issue, but seems odd to me.
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
|
Replies:
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 3:04pm
The difference is that Democrats want people to have the right to unionize, if they wish. Whereas Republicans want no one to be able to unionize ever. Democrats believe people should have a choice, if they don't want to do it, they don't have to. Republicans don't want people to have any choice.
-------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 3:11pm
evillepaintball wrote:
The difference is that Democrats want people to have the right to unionize, if they wish. Whereas Republicans want no one to be able to unionize ever. Democrats believe people should have a choice, if they don't want to do it, they don't have to. Republicans don't want people to have any choice. | True, but again, it still is against each others interests. Having an open door policy which seems to be what liberal/Democrats want allows for the influx of cheap non-unionized labor, which is what you think conservatives/Republicans would want. Why spend the money outsourcing to India when you can hire cheap non-union workers here?
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 3:23pm
Maybe because Republicans don't actually want small government, they just want the sectors that democrats like to be small.
-------------
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 3:52pm
You're first assumption that any political party has a thought-out and logical ideology. William F. Buckley could have told you what "conservative" meant, but lately the door has been open for every looney you can think of, and the louder the better. I'm convinced that with "true conservatives" having a major problem with any viable candidate or hint of moderation, that the bet way to win the Republican nomination would be to vow to bring about prophecy by starting a nuclear war, thus bringing back Jesus. It's the only way to trump putting prayer back in public school, kicking out all the Catholic Mexicans, and banning abortion and/or birth control. What true conservative could possibly promise better than making the kingdom of God a reality by sweet cleansing holy nuclear fire, which was given specifically to the United States by Jaysus and then stolen by commies, the French, Jews, and now worst of all Muslins? I mean, there was a Blizzard in October, God is obviously upset we haven't nuked anybody since 1945.
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 4:11pm
rednekk98 wrote:
It's the only way to trump putting prayer back in public school, kicking out all the Catholic Mexicans, and banning abortion and/or birth control. | Irony?
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 6:26pm
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 7:11pm
|
Or like how my uber conservative friends gripe and moan about how Obama has taken all of their rights, then defend the PATRIOT act as being completely necessary and effective? Or how Obama has failed miserably because of policies, but Bush was simply on the receiving end of lots of bad luck? Any person who wholeheartedly and blindly supports their party will eventually have to warp their logic to support said party's actions, because both parties are in some way going to work towards an agenda that contradictis their traditional ideologies. If that makes sense.
-------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 7:39pm
evillepaintball wrote:
Democrats believe people should have a choice, if they don't want to do it, they don't have to. Republicans don't want people to have any choice. |
This could apply to abortion to.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 8:56pm
rednekk98 wrote:
Which part? | The fact that Catholics are opposed to abortion and/or birth control as well as being in favor of prayer in school. Yet another reason convervatives should embrace them..theoretically.
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 12:19am
You're missing the idea that political ideology is extremely illogical, Catliks listen to a guy with funny hat so they aren't real 'Muricuns. Honestly, the conservative party (which has been many different parties throughout the history of the nation) is doing an overhaul. You have social conservative evangelicals trying to form a party with Ayn Rand type free-market believers. All are gasping at some vague idea of what it means to be conservative and many have no desire to even understand the underpinnings of their respective ideologies. Rand abhorred businesses using political clout to gain favoritism, the conservative movement craps on Solyndra but likes corporations being considered individuals by the US Supreme court and hates campaign finance reform. Political parties are at best a conglomeration of special interests and factions who are more united by what they oppose than what they believe in.
Adam Smith was for government financial intervention when things were too expensive for business to risk investing in, like infrastructure. Modern conservatives on the far right want to privatize basic 18th Century things things like roads. Rand, Regan, T.R. Jefferson and many others would have major problems with what the modern conservative movement seems to want. Jefferson was theoretically anti-centralization of Gov't power, but pro-public education. The far right would prefer defunding public education in favor of private schooling with the possibility of gov't mandates. Few politicians make sense on an ideological level. Extreme liberals want to tell you not to eat animals, drive a pickup, or own a gun, or kill a convicted violent felon, extreme conservative don't want you to use drugs, practice birth control or abortion, and many think the Constitution does not apply to non-Christians or immigrants.
What we have here is the liberal ideologies of the 17th and 18th centuries enshrined (selectively) as conservative tenants by people who also enshrine -5th century social ideas. Many of our social conservative ideas are actually extremely eastern in philosophy. They put the group ahead of the individual. That's why reproduction is encouraged and things like gayness are discouraged. They are not in line with continuing the dominant culture, while they are influenced by classical Western thinkers in terms of valuing individuals. Liberals have similar ideological problems. They like the idea of the collective good being the highest good and face the same problem as Eastern thought, basically thinking they have everything figured out already.
I'm convinced that the vast majority of people have never really looked at the thinkers who've inspired their ideology in depth and in context, and are fine with relying on Glenn Beck and Ariana Huffington to tell them what their ideology is. The best they can do is to pick a side that will screw with their personal life less if they were to get their way and stick to it to the extent that the group doesn't alienate them. That's the reason why we see Libertarians looking like they're going to make a break from the mainstream conservatives.
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 1:41am
|
Whole lota crazy in this thread.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 11:06am
oldpbnoob wrote:
most conservatives that want to corral all the illegals up and banish them are also staunch advocates of a hands off of business government.
|
To defend conservatives (And I know you admitted wholly that we're dealing with simplifications here), the idea of "rounding up and banishing" illegals is really more thought of as an ideological enforcement of law, whereas the idea of liberalism in business is more of a pragmatic approach to making money.
On both sides, the apparent ideological gaps tend to come in where the pragmatic and ideological shores cross.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 11:39am
|
generalizations are just that...
I don't think that illegals should be deported... I do think they should put up a fence, as terrorists are walking into the country now. But, that is a different issue than illegals.
I think this country should allow people to come here if they think it would be better for them or their family.
I also think that killing someone because you "chose" to, isn't a logical moral choice. If death of a human is the result of your choice, then clearly that shouldn't be legal (and yet it is... now I see why the concentration camps were "acceptable" if you were living in Germany, again the product of relative morality).
No wonder Tim Tebow is so persecuted, he did the unpardonable and admitted that if his mother hadn't had strong moral character, he would have been aborted...
Drawing back the curtain on the horror of abortion and the fact that afterwords a life is gone... Well, in his case, the "aborted" has a voice, and a pretty strong voice at that.
If all our athletes had character like him, imagine the good they could do for the world.
But, instead people attack him for his beliefs, and for *gasp* being alive... When society said he should have been aborted.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 11:43am
|
And the King of Hypocrites chimes in with the usual, tired selective morality crapola.
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 11:53am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
I do think they should put up a fence, as terrorists are walking into the country now. But, that is a different issue than illegals. |
One, I'd imagine a terrorist would probably just go through Canada as opposed to trying to sneak through Mexico. Are you proposing a U.S./Canada fence?
They do have a "fence" of sorts between us and Mexico. It's just only built up in large traffic areas, or areas with a lot of potential for border crossing. The main problem with building a full, big, protective fence the entire path of the U.S. - Mexico border is that the border is, from Pacific to Gulf, a few miles shy of being 2,000 miles.
It's enormous. As I posted in another thread, if you stretched out the distance of the border in a straight driving path, it's the same as going from Washington D.C. to the edge of the Colorado/Utah border.
So, as you can imagine, cost becomes a major concern. Not only just raw materials, but paying a team to build the thing out in the middle of the desert where there is no infrastructure or place for workers to stay. And then comes the major flaw of a fence: It's worthless unless you have people pretty much everywhere to monitor it. Because if you don't monitor it, people will knock through it, or climb it, or dig under it.
And it gets expensive, and takes away from other security duties, to have people monitoring a nearly 2,000 mile stretch of fence in lock-down formation.
We'd have done that as a country way earlier if it was at-all feasible.
I think this country should allow people to come here if they think it would be better for them or their family. |
Concurred.
I also think that killing someone because you "chose" to, isn't a logical moral choice. If death of a human is the result of your choice, then clearly that shouldn't be legal |
I had no idea you were so against capital punishment.
No wonder Tim Tebow is so persecuted, |
Exactly how and where is Tebow persecuted?
Drawing back the curtain on the horror of abortion and the fact that afterwords a life is gone... |
Walter is to Vietnam as you are to abortion.
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 11:57am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
generalizations are just that...
I don't think that illegals should be deported... I do think they should put up a fence, as terrorists are walking into the country now. But, that is a different issue than illegals.
I agree. Everyone knows that terrorists' one and only weakness is an unmanned fence.
I think this country should allow people to come here if they think it would be better for them or their family.
I also think that killing someone because you "chose" to, isn't a logical moral choice. If death of a human is the result of your choice, then clearly that shouldn't be legal (and yet it is... now I see why the concentration camps were "acceptable" if you were living in Germany, again the product of relative morality).
In before fetus =person debate
No wonder Tim Tebow is so persecuted, he did the unpardonable and admitted that if his mother hadn't had strong moral character, he would have been aborted...
Drawing back the curtain on the horror of abortion and the fact that afterwords a life is gone... Well, in his case, the "aborted" has a voice, and a pretty strong voice at that.
If all our athletes had character like him, imagine the good they could do for the world.
But, instead people attack him for his beliefs, and for *gasp* being alive... When society said he could have been aborted.
Fixed. |
Question for you. Do you support capital punishment?
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 12:03pm
|
yes, I support capital "punishment". As someone actually DOES something to DESERVE the sentance, unlike abortion where the child is killed because the mother doesn't feel like allowing him to live in her body for 9 months...
Which is more humane, allowing a life to live inside your body for 9 months, or killing someone who killed others on purpose with intent, and if released would likely do it again?
They are not anywhere near the same thing, all civilized societies use capital punishment of some sort or another. How does a baby dying because someone didn't want their body to change in any way compare to capital punishment?
As to Tim Tebow, being "not being" persecuted, are you seriously playing that card Whale?...
Am I treated the same as everyone else on this board?...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 12:05pm
|
Oh and virtual fences in the remote areas would be fine, with all those nifty drones we are using to spy on and arrest our citizens now...
Anyway, back to whales ridiculous assertion that Tebow isn't persecuted...
Clearly the USA today didn't get his memo...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-02/tim-tebow-faith-media/51582844/1 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-02/tim-tebow-faith-media/51582844/1
There have been THOUSANDS of articles written about Tebow, and the sports writers have been particularly unpleasant to him, google is your friend.
The article I linked above spells it out, and it also provides a reason why I am the "King" of being called out on this board... Everyone can have their opinions, EXCEPT someone who talks about Jesus being Lord of their life...
"So what gives? Why does even Tebow's own coaching staff and management offer so little public support?
http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Athletes/NFL/Jake+Plummer - Jake Plummer , the latest to take pot shots at the embattled Denver quarterback, might have been speaking for anti-Tebowites everywhere when he said in an interview on a Phoenix radio station that he would like Tebow more if he would "shut up" about his faith in http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Religion+and+beliefs/God,+Saints,+Prophets/Jesus - Jesus Christ ."
THAT is the issue, so while you preach tolerance towards every religion under the sun, you want vocal Christians to fail... And the worse they fail the better, as then you can call them the King of hypocrites (oh wait, how did I fail? Oh yeah, I recommended Cain, before I knew he had serious personal morality issues, do you really think I support him now that I know that?)
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 12:14pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Am I treated the same as everyone else on this board?... | You're treated the way you are not because of your beleifs, but because you choose to be a dick about your beleifs.
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 12:15pm
You support capital punishment, even though it kills innocent people, albeit fewer than guilty ones, as well?
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 12:23pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
yes, I support capital "punishment". As someone actually DOES something to DESERVE the sentance, |
I'm confused as to how this is not selective morality.
You stated earlier that:
I also think that killing someone because you "chose" to, isn't a logical moral choice. If death of a human is the result of your choice, then clearly that shouldn't be legal |
This description fits both abortion and capital punishment.
In the case of capital punishment, the state is choosing to execute someone. The result of that execution is death.
What makes one different than the other, using the statement that the point of abortion being wrong is that someone else is choosing death?
Which is more humane, allowing a life to live inside your body for 9 months, or killing someone who killed others on purpose with intent, and if released would likely do it again? |
Why does the "humane" level factor in. Either choosing to kill someone is immoral, or it's moral. You can't have it both ways. That would be selective.
all civilized societies use capital punishment of some sort or another. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country - You should check up on that.
As to Tim Tebow, being "not being" persecuted, are you seriously playing that card Whale?... |
Yes. Please explain exactly how and when he is persecuted.
Am I treated the same as everyone else on this board?... |
It does appear so.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 12:32pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Oh and virtual fences in the remote areas would be fine, |
"Virtual" fences have some pretty steep limitations, and ultimately still need a lot of manpower for oversight.
There have been THOUSANDS of articles written about Tebow, and the sports writers have been particularly unpleasant to him, google is your friend. |
I've seen quite a bit of challenging of him bringing up Jesus and God in sports-related situations. I've seen people turn him into a meme. I've seen people even question his decision to do an anti-abortion commercial.
Perhaps our thresholds of persecution are different, but I'm hard-pressed to call that persecution.
He's still has a job as a starting quarterback. He's still got a multi-million dollar contract. He's still got his endorsements (I think UnderArmor is his big one).
People questioning if it's appropriate to thank God for you making a touchdown isn't exactly persecution. There has been no repercussive action so far, that I'm aware of, taken against Tebow.
So is that your threshold for persecution? Being challenged and questioned?
Everyone can have their opinions, EXCEPT someone who talks about Jesus being Lord of their life... |
You're still fine and open to have that opinion on this board. But, people will challenge and question you about it.
Is that persecution?
THAT is the issue, so while you preach tolerance towards every religion under the sun, you want vocal Christians to fail... |
I want Tebow to fail?
I mean, I used to. But that's because I didn't like the Gators. (And still don't really).
Now? Seems like a nice enough guy, and is introducing a feasible spread to the NFL. I've got no problems with him.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 1:02pm
Yay Whale's back!
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Everyone can have their opinions, EXCEPT someone who talks about Jesus being Lord of their life... |
Wrong on two levels. Wrong firstly because Christianity isn't an opinion, it's a way of life. Wrong secondly because lots of people talk about Jesus and get away with it. I've mentioned my own religious ideas many times on this forum.
FreeEnterprise wrote:
How does a baby dying because someone didn't want their body to change in any way compare to capital punishment? |
Because many people feel that killing is wrong, regardless. They feel that attaching substantial value to a human life in one situation but then taking it upon yourself to judge and extinguish that life in another is a double standard. I disagree with those people. I have no issue with capital punishment, other than that the appeals processs and general wait time ends up making death row inmates more expensive than just giving them life in prison, and frankly I'd rather give life in prison and not worry about that nagging little error rate. I am personally very much anti-abortion, though I hesitate to work against it legally because it just seems so good for the economy to not have all those extra people around. Is that inhumane? Yes. But money is king here, and welfare babies aren't good for anyone So while I wouldn't personally recommend an abortion, and I have been faced with dilemma before, I think that, from a purely economical standpoint, it's as conservative of an issue as exists. Want to get rid of welfare recipients? Help stop them from reproducing.
FreeEnterprise wrote:
The article I linked above spells it out, and it also provides a reason why I am the "King" of being called out on this board... Everyone can have their opinions, EXCEPT someone who talks about Jesus being Lord of their life... |
BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAAHHA.
Go look up a thread I posted about pulling the religion card, becaue you just pulled it. In fact, in a case of double unintentional hilarity, you are generally "persecuated" (read: called out on) making ridiculous arguments such as that one. This is so typical, it really did make me smile when I read it. "WHAT? YOU DON'T AGREE WITH MY POSITION ON POLITICS? YOU HATE ME FOR BEING A CHRISTIAN." Remember when it was the race card? Yeah. That. As far as everyone on this board treating you bad...get over yourself. You come on the scene loud and proud about your political beliefs, then when people come back at you loud and proud about their own you're being persecuted. You want to know something funny? This is a forum. We come on here to converse, and occasionally (this is where you get your mind blown) debate. Know what debate's all about? One person gives their argument, then another person counters that argument. It goes all the way back to the dialectic. Yet, somehow nowadays people skip your argument and go straight for ad hominem attacks It's one of the most basic argumentative fallacies you learn in philosophy, and yet it's probably one of the most used out there right now. Don't like the way I cook popcorn? YOU MUST HATE JESUS. So if you don't people countering your opinions with those of your own, I recommend you hit up forums made solely of likeminded peopel, otherwise they're going to engage you in conversation. And if you come off as whiney and condescending, they're going to respond in a like manner. You'd be shocked to find that most of us here disagree with each other often, and yet do it peacefully. But we're all open to learning-you're here to preach, and when the crowd rejects your sermon, you accuse them of biggotry.
-------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 1:39pm
I'm curious why Christians have a right to preach?
Surely them trying to convert me is them infringing on my rights?
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 1:56pm
Which ones?
-------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 3:49pm
Just in general. If I try say listen I'm not interested I'm bigoted. If I try argue, bigoted.
But they can preach hellfire and damnation without any worries.
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 5:44pm
When you are in a public place and not a captive audience, you don't have a right to not hear things you don't like, but they still have the right to free speech. If you don't like what they are saying, you have the right to move on.
-------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 5:47pm
The only good Christian in the world.

------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 15 December 2011 at 6:05pm
Why?
-------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 12:31am
evillepaintball wrote:
If you don't like what they are saying, you have the right to move on. |
But if you try debate them, like here, you aren't exercising free speech, you are persecuting them.
It always appears that their right to speech is more important than yours.Even if only to them.
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 1:37am
Kayback wrote:
evillepaintball wrote:
If you don't like what they are saying, you have the right to move on. |
But if you try debate them, like here, you aren't exercising free speech, you are persecuting them.
KBK |
No, you aren't. Their perception is not reality.
-------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 3:35am
evillepaintball wrote:
Kayback wrote:
evillepaintball wrote:
If you don't like what they are saying, you have the right to move on. |
But if you try debate them, like here, you aren't exercising free speech, you are persecuting them.
That also works both ways. Christians can't say anything to anyone else either.
KBK |
No, you aren't. Their perception is not reality.
Thats purely opinion. |
Basically you have the freedom of speech and ideas and you cannot take that away from somebody just because you don't agree with what they say. Choose to ignore it if you must.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 8:47am
|
Is bullying "persecution"?
Is this bullying?
oldpbnoob wrote:
And the King of Hypocrites chimes in with the usual, tired selective morality crapola. |
oldpbnoob wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Am I treated the same as everyone else on this board?... | You're treated the way you are not because of your beleifs, but because you choose to be a dick about your beleifs. |
That is straight up bullying in my opinion. No example to prove his opinion, just baseless insults and bullying behavior which includes name calling, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse - verbal and written abuse. (according to wikipedia page on bullying)
Is that persecution?
Look at the signatures of people on here, many over time have referred to my online persona by name...
Then look at this paragraph from wiki on bullying
Bullying behavior may include name calling, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse - verbal or written abuse, exclusion from activities, exclusion from social situations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse - physical abuse , or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion - coercion . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying#cite_note-Whitted-12 - [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying#cite_note-17 - [18] Bullies may behave this way to be perceived as popular or tough or to get attention. They may bully out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jealousy - jealousy or be acting out because they themselves are bullied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying#cite_note-18 - [19]
U.S. National Center for Education Statistics suggests that bullying can be classified into two categories: Direct bullying, and indirect bullying (which is also known as social aggression). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying#cite_note-nces-2005-310-0 - [1]
He also suggests that social aggression or indirect bullying is characterized by threatening the victim into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_isolation - social isolation . This isolation is achieved through a wide variety of techniques, including spreading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip - gossip , refusing to socialize with the victim, bullying other people who wish to socialize with the victim, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism - criticizing the victim's manner of dress and other socially-significant markers (including the victim's race, religion, disability, sex, or sexual preference, etc.). Ross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying#cite_note-ross-19 - [20] outlines other forms of indirect bullying which are more subtle and more likely to be verbal, such as name calling, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_treatment - silent treatment , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense - arguing others into submission , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation - manipulation , gossip/false gossip, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie - lies , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumor - rumors / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander - false rumors , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staring - staring , giggling, laughing at the victim, saying certain words that trigger a reaction from a past event, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockery - mocking . The UK based children's charity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Against_Bullying - Act Against Bullying , was set up in 2003 to help children who were victims of this type of bullying by researching and publishing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coping_skills - coping skills .
It has been noted that there tend to be differences in how bullying manifests itself between the sexes. Males tend to be more likely to be physically aggressive whereas females tend to favour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusion - exclusion and mockery, though it has been noticed that females are becoming more physical in their bullying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying#cite_note-Besag-15 - [16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
Now, again, I don't care, forum bullying is a normal thing today, one of my coworkers next door neighbors http://www.kypost.com/dpps/news/region_northern_kentucky/taylor_mill/prayer-vigil-for-nky-teen-tonight_6832369 - son just committed suicide from this exact type of internet bullying accompanied by school bullying. But, to pretend like that isn't persecution and doesn't attempt to silence me is insincere at best. Many of you participate in this behavior often.
I'm calling you out on it.
Let's debate, I love being challenged, and questioned, but leave the insults and personal jabs behind, as it does nothing constructive to the conversations. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 9:02am
|
Being truthfull isn't bullying. You're a hypocrite and a dick, what's to debate?
You came into my thread that had nothing to do with religion or persecution and started rambling your mumbo jumbo invisible friend and anti abortion crap. As usual, you were fishing for persecution. Don't like it? stay out of my threads. I stay out of yours.
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 9:13am
True to style, FE ignores an entire thread of lengthy replies and moans about a single one liner.
You get equal treatment here. I could go back and dig up at least a handful of threads where you received praise and compliments for your achievements.
Brihard literally defended you for two pages, and several have agreed with you on several things.
In fact, you're one of maybe two forumers that I've actually paid a legitimate compliment to.
But nevermind all of that, you're going to ignore every thought out reply in a thread and go straight to some comment you can milk for the victim card.
-------------
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 9:32am
evillepaintball wrote:
The difference is that Democrats want people to have the right to unionize, if they wish. Whereas Republicans want no one to be able to unionize ever. Democrats believe people should have a choice, if they don't want to do it, they don't have to. Republicans don't want people to have any choice. |
I live in a unionized state. The repubicans want to change it into a right-to-work state which gives any employee to choose to join the union or not. The democrats do heavily back the unions, but I've never hired into a union shop where I was given the choice to join or not. If I wanted the job, I had to join the union. The only choice the Dem give you here is whether or not you want to work at a union shop. So, technically you're incorrect when you say the repubicans don't want to give people a choice.
-------------
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 9:40am
Kayback wrote:
I'm curious why Christians have a right to preach?
Surely them trying to convert me is them infringing on my rights?
KBK |
You can always tell them to stop. You can turn around and leave, or you can shut the door in their face(s). There is nothing stopping you from preaching back at them, either.
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 12:19pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Is bullying "persecution"? | No. Persecution is persecution. This, however, is the movement of goalposts. We were discussing persecution and Tim Tebow. Persecution, by the way, has a legalized definition that can be used, of which nothing done to either you or Tim Tebow fits that definition.
Is this bullying?
oldpbnoob wrote:
And the King of Hypocrites chimes in with the usual, tired selective morality crapola. |
oldpbnoob wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Am I treated the same as everyone else on this board?... | You're treated the way you are not because of your beleifs, but because you choose to be a dick about your beleifs. |
|
No.
from this exact type of internet bullying |
Most likely not, no.
The type of cyber-bullying associated with teen suicide is active approach, much like how it works in real life. For example, the bullies will harass someone through their messaging accounts, will harass someone on the victim's own social networking pages, will start blogs attacking the victim.
In your case, you come here, to this public forum, and get disagreed with.
You actively choose to come to this place and post things. You're the one making the decision. Nobody forces you to click "go."
doesn't attempt to silence me |
You've always been open to post here. Nobody has prevented you from expressing your opinion here. The only exceptions are when you had your threads locked for 1) Admitted trolling, and 2) Multiposting in multiple threads on the front page.
I'm confused as to how anything that happens here is an attempt to silence you.
Someone calling you a hypocrite does not, in any way, prevent you from clicking the "post" button.
Let's debate, I love being challenged, and questioned, but leave the insults and personal jabs behind, as it does nothing constructive to the conversations. |
If you're going to live in such a frail glass home, it might be a good idea not to post stones like:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Anyone who would support Obama again is just plain pathetic. |
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 12:54pm
You atheists and your darn logic.
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 8:26pm
Reading my last post here, a 12 pack is apparently not good intellectual fuel. On to the current careening topic (I'll hit on a few actually) of the thread; bullying. I think others have done well in pointing out to FE the difference between bullying and debate, but I'll throw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDK-ja8PLgg - this out there . It's a response to exemption from bullying legislation for reasons based on moral or religious justification. Is it bullying to tell someone, especially a child, that they will go to hell for their beliefs or behaviors, especially things like sexual orientation? Unwanted preaching tends to be one of my chief pet peeves with the religious. Threatening people or their loved ones with an eternity of unimaginable torment is really crossing the line of social propriety, even if it's supposedly for their own good.
Tim Tebow is in-your-face enough to be annoying, I now have reasons beyond being a Pats fan to look forward to seeing the Broncos beaten Sunday. That he often manages to pull something out of his butt and win at the last minute has unfortunately given people the impression that for some reason God is acting through him to prove some sort of a point, rather than that he can scramble and might have good leadership skills and that luck is chance when it goes your way. I've seen Tom Brady come from behind to win many, many times, but that doesn't mean somehow God favors him. I generally distrust people who are flamboyant in their public religiosity. If there were a God, I'm doubtful he'd be impressed, I'm doubtful it is effective in converting others, and I secretly suspect that people who go out of their way to show how religious they are are insecure about their moral standing, and possibly have some very disturbing impulses they are barely able to control and are overcompensating.
|
|