|
On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary.
Of course it's not balanced commentary. This is a discussion forum where the primary age group is late teens to early 20s, the vast majority of which are Obama supporters. You're not going to find balanced discussion in a place where almost everyone is on one side of an opinion. I don't really know why you'd expect anything else.
|
On October 09 2008 08:49 XoXiDe wrote:Teaching age appropriate sex education is a noble cause, I'm sure many people on this forum have people they know that were abused but don't even know about it. Many kids don't even realize what is being done to them is wrong until they tell someone and they end up telling an authority figure.It is also evident that parents are not teaching their kids about this kind of stuff, it has to be taught somewhere.The numbers are huge for the amount of kids abused, trying to imply that children would be learning about actual sex at 5 years old is ridiculous, something out of bill o reiley's book. The bill would have even let parents opt out. NY TIMES ARTICLEFACTCHECK"The proposal was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association."
Factcheck is wrong here:
The bill would let parents opt out, but this is what it says about what would be taught:
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."
A child that young does not need to learn that stuff.
It wasn't primarily about teaching them about sexual predators.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session
|
On October 09 2008 08:52 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. That's not the real reason evandi, don't kid yourself... again.
Why do you think I asked him to get it changed to that? Do you think I'm a closet Obama supporter?
|
On October 09 2008 08:54 Cobalt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. Of course it's not balanced commentary. This is a discussion forum where the primary age group is late teens to early 20s, the vast majority of which are Obama supporters. You're not going to find balanced discussion in a place where almost everyone is on one side of an opinion. I don't really know why you'd expect anything else.
Well, thats why I'm here. This age group is mostly voting based on whats considered cool so they mostly just go for what their friends think. Some might get the impression that this is a normal discussion about the election and that everyone is stupid or racist to bring up anything bad about Obama.
EDIT: To clarify, I read this website every day and watch starcraft every day. I don't mean to imply that I registered just to discuss this.
|
On October 09 2008 09:01 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 08:52 aRod wrote:On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. That's not the real reason evandi, don't kid yourself... again. Why do you think I asked you to change it to that? Do you think I'm a closet Obama supporter?
Ah yes the classic evandi style arguementative tactic, avoid the question! I will actually answer your question. No I don't think you support Obama, I think you were using the statement as a rhetorical point and an accusation of partisanship.
|
On October 09 2008 09:04 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 09:01 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:52 aRod wrote:On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. That's not the real reason evandi, don't kid yourself... again. Why do you think I asked you to change it to that? Do you think I'm a closet Obama supporter? Ah yes the classic evandi style arguementative tactic, avoid the question! I will actually answer your question. No I don't think you support Obama, I think you were using the statement as a rhetorical point and an accusation of partisanship.
It is an accusation of partisanship. One that will be proven if you agree to change the title. I thought that was clever.
|
i like evandi
imo this thread was getting kinda slow. it was the same debates being rehashed. not that that's changed, but now it's getting rehashed with threats of violence!!!
|
On October 09 2008 09:03 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 08:54 Cobalt wrote:On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. Of course it's not balanced commentary. This is a discussion forum where the primary age group is late teens to early 20s, the vast majority of which are Obama supporters. You're not going to find balanced discussion in a place where almost everyone is on one side of an opinion. I don't really know why you'd expect anything else. Well, thats why I'm here. This age group is mostly voting based on whats considered cool so they mostly just go for what their friends think. Some might get the impression that this is a normal discussion about the election and that everyone is stupid or racist to bring up anything bad about Obama. EDIT: To clarify, I read this website every day and watch starcraft every day. I don't mean to imply that I registered just to discuss this.
I am really curious as to what your exceptional qualifications are that makes you smarter than all of us.
|
On October 09 2008 09:05 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 09:04 aRod wrote:On October 09 2008 09:01 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:52 aRod wrote:On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. That's not the real reason evandi, don't kid yourself... again. Why do you think I asked you to change it to that? Do you think I'm a closet Obama supporter? Ah yes the classic evandi style arguementative tactic, avoid the question! I will actually answer your question. No I don't think you support Obama, I think you were using the statement as a rhetorical point and an accusation of partisanship. It is an accusation of partisanship. One that will be proven if you agree to change the title. I thought that was clever.
Another duck and dodge. Way to make my point
|
On October 09 2008 09:08 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 09:03 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:54 Cobalt wrote:On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. Of course it's not balanced commentary. This is a discussion forum where the primary age group is late teens to early 20s, the vast majority of which are Obama supporters. You're not going to find balanced discussion in a place where almost everyone is on one side of an opinion. I don't really know why you'd expect anything else. Well, thats why I'm here. This age group is mostly voting based on whats considered cool so they mostly just go for what their friends think. Some might get the impression that this is a normal discussion about the election and that everyone is stupid or racist to bring up anything bad about Obama. EDIT: To clarify, I read this website every day and watch starcraft every day. I don't mean to imply that I registered just to discuss this. I am really curious as to what your exceptional qualifications are that makes you smarter than all of us.
I merely said "most" not all.
Most of the people responding to me only know how to insult.
|
Just because there are two opinions on a matter doesn't mean the truth is dead in the middle of them. Sometimes one of them is simply wrong and the other is simply right, or one is mostly right and the other mostly wrong. Neutrality will in most cases not coincide with objectivity, so just pointing out there are a lot of Obama supporters here doesn't support your assertion that the discussion is skewed and it doesn't mean the objective truth is closer to McCain.
Feel free to oppose whoever you feel is wrong, but if you want to be taken seriously and convince anyone, you'd better start bringing some real arguments to the table.
|
On October 09 2008 09:09 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 09:05 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 09:04 aRod wrote:On October 09 2008 09:01 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:52 aRod wrote:On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. That's not the real reason evandi, don't kid yourself... again. Why do you think I asked you to change it to that? Do you think I'm a closet Obama supporter? Ah yes the classic evandi style arguementative tactic, avoid the question! I will actually answer your question. No I don't think you support Obama, I think you were using the statement as a rhetorical point and an accusation of partisanship. It is an accusation of partisanship. One that will be proven if you agree to change the title. I thought that was clever. Another duck and dodge. Way to make my point
I didn't dodge anything. I agreed with this: "I think you were using the statement as a rhetorical point and an accusation of partisanship"
Yes, of course, but if you actually do it you will prove yourself and this thread partisan.
So I don't mind if you do.
|
what is your fucking credentials stop dodging the question. i highly doubt you are more informed than jibba and some of the other people you're insulting. either that or you're one of those wacked out people on daily kos/instapundit whatever who think being able to recite what candidate said what on what day qualifies them as experts at politics. these people gross me out because of how goddamn clueless they are about everything EXCEPT for their candidate. there are plenty of these people in this thread, on either side. you strike me as one of these people.
|
On October 09 2008 09:12 Doctorasul wrote:
Just because there are two opinions on a matter doesn't mean the truth is dead in the middle of them. Sometimes one of them is simply wrong and the other is simply right, or one is mostly right and the other mostly wrong. Neutrality will in most cases not coincide with objectivity, so just pointing out there are a lot of Obama supporters here doesn't support your assertion that the discussion is skewed and it doesn't mean the objective truth is closer to McCain.
Feel free to oppose whoever you feel is wrong, but if you want to be taken seriously and convince anyone, you'd better start bringing some real arguments to the table.
When you don't discuss but only insult, you are a blind partisan. A lot of people here are doing that. People called me a troll. Really? Do you think all republicans are trolls? Is that so?
That is partisan. I'm not asking for something in-between, but offering nothing but insults is partisan.
My initial argument showed that forcing school-children to work for no pay was slavery. Thats a real argument because they will be forced and they will not be payed and its on his website.
|
On October 09 2008 09:12 Doctorasul wrote:
Just because there are two opinions on a matter doesn't mean the truth is dead in the middle of them. Sometimes one of them is simply wrong and the other is simply right, or one is mostly right and the other mostly wrong. Neutrality will in most cases not coincide with objectivity, so just pointing out there are a lot of Obama supporters here doesn't support your assertion that the discussion is skewed and it doesn't mean the objective truth is closer to McCain.
Feel free to oppose whoever you feel is wrong, but if you want to be taken seriously and convince anyone, you'd better start bringing some real arguments to the table.
i think you'd be deluding yourself if you argued that the discussion wasn't skewed in favor of obama.
quite another thing to come up here and start swinging your arms and insulting people's intelligence.
|
On October 09 2008 09:16 ahrara_ wrote:
what is your fucking credentials stop dodging the question. i highly doubt you are more informed than jibba and some of the other people you're insulting. either that or you're one of those wacked out people on daily kos/instapundit whatever who think being able to recite what candidate said what on what day qualifies them as experts at politics. these people gross me out because of how goddamn clueless they are about everything EXCEPT for their candidate. there are plenty of these people in this thread, on either side. you strike me as one of these people.
You said that I claimed to be smarter than all of you, I just said most people here don't have a clue about politics: those would be the ones who do nothing but insult, because thats all they can do.
What are my credentials? None. I said most here had no clue. Obviously Jibba has done some actual arguing rather than just insulting me. Others have not, but not all have just insulted me.
EDIT: and I actually specifically said most who post and i meant on this thread.
EDIT: oops, i'm wrong, you're referring to something else
|
Well, it could very well be skewed in favor of Obama, my point was that you can't show that by pointing out there are a lot of supporters of Obama here, but by showing their arguments to be wrong. In a thread on palm reading the vast majority would recognize it as bullshit, yet we wouldn't call that discussion unbalanced just because the opposing point of view is so poorly represented.
|
On October 09 2008 09:22 Doctorasul wrote:
Well, it could very well be skewed in favor of Obama, my point was that you can't show that by pointing out there are a lot of supporters of Obama here, but by showing their arguments to be wrong. In a thread on palm reading the vast majority would recognize it as bullshit, yet we wouldn't call that discussion unbalanced just because the opposing point of view is so poorly represented.
I was saying that it is partisan because most people weren't even addressing my arguments.
It is also unbalanced because most people are ignoring the faults of their own side, and the side whose faults get ignored on this thread would be the democrats.
|
On October 09 2008 09:08 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 09:03 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:54 Cobalt wrote:On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote:On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote:
evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. Of course it's not balanced commentary. This is a discussion forum where the primary age group is late teens to early 20s, the vast majority of which are Obama supporters. You're not going to find balanced discussion in a place where almost everyone is on one side of an opinion. I don't really know why you'd expect anything else. Well, thats why I'm here. This age group is mostly voting based on whats considered cool so they mostly just go for what their friends think. Some might get the impression that this is a normal discussion about the election and that everyone is stupid or racist to bring up anything bad about Obama. EDIT: To clarify, I read this website every day and watch starcraft every day. I don't mean to imply that I registered just to discuss this. I am really curious as to what your exceptional qualifications are that makes you smarter than all of us.
Yes, I think that most people in the age group that was mentioned do not pay much attention to politics. I think I'm right about most in the age group. If it doesn't apply to you than you aren't part of most.
|
Evandi, the this site being so pro Obama might have more to do with this site being international than what age group are here. The US is the only place in the world where a campaign like Mccains could be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
