Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Strife wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Strife wrote:I would most certainly vote for any qualified candidate whose views I see eye-to-eye with. That's a big problem just in America, I'm sure the majority of people voted Obama into office because he is African American, not because of any qualifications or shared views.

You are misinformed. It is hard to get an accurate count, but its likely at least as many people voted for Obaman in spite of his race as because of it. Thankfully, race was just irrelevant for most.

Actually it is you who is misinformed. I stated my opinion. I cannot be misinformed on my opinion. Go ahead and ask anyone you know, who voted for Obama, and see if I'm right. I held a poll for my government class, I went around asking people in my community and my friends neighborhoods this: "Who did you vote for?" if they answered Obama(which the majority did) I then asked "Why, or what was the biggest reason for this?" nearly eighty percent of these people had simply said, "Change! I want me a black sonofabitch for my prez."(actually seventy-eight percent). Until you hold your own fuckin poll don't tell me I've been goddamned misinformed. Cause you clearly have your head up your ass if you're just spewing that kind of bullshit out. The poll included me asking 326 people, of which approximately 200(195) people voted for Obama and of those people 152 of those people said because he's a fuckin black man, the other answers include but are not limited to: change, "if I tell you it won't come true(?)," "alright man just get the f*ck off my lawn," and so on, I believe only two people gave me a straight answer about how he would tax the rich for a change. So go feed your misinformed bullshit to someone else please.

Yes, I see you learned some interesting words on the playground.

Now for real grown up communication, let me spell it out. This was a topic of many polls, talkshows, articles, etc. 326 people is a reasonable sample, BUT ONLY if it is a RANDOM set. You make it clear you were polling people in your school. These are people in a specific age group and furthermore, within a specific local with specific interests. This is something you should learn about in your classes if they are doing a decent job of teaching you sampling and polling techniques.

So, cute words aside, while yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but when you say "I am sure" and words to that effect, you are making an inference of proof. However, you don't have it. You have a faulty poll and apparently have not yet the education necessary to know it is faulty. So, consider this a contribution toward your education. Or dismiss it .. and well... good luck .

I can't stop laughing... Community, neighborhood, do these words mean nothing to you? These are grown adults, I never stated or lead on that it was at my school, and further during hours when it would be occupied. Clearly you are the one in need of an education. In spite of me not mentioning that, I did ask several of my teachers. But they are most certainly not of any specific age group other than 20+-80+.

I spent my summer last year at Harvard Law thank you very much. You should really consider learning something about someone before judging an education. The words "I am" infer that it is of my collective knowledge, if it's mine that means it is of my possession, and these are my thoughts. Now I really will not be drawn into an educative debate with you, so cute words, that you obviously have no understanding of, aside.

In light of your advice, I will dismiss your ignorant comment. I would like that this be the last of the topic, if you'd please. And get back to the subject at hand, which may I remind you is certainly not my education.

Strife wrote:[


I spent my summer last year at Harvard Law thank you very much. You should really consider learning something about someone before judging an education.

and yet you still don't understand basic sampling..... typical.

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:your evidence for the greater immorality of American Atheists being...?

Being their lack of a moral code. Whenever atheists hear this they take it personally. I'm not talking about you or Neo or Simon or anyone in particular. You guys could have great morals for all I know. In fact, I suspect a large reason why people my age become atheist is because they want to get drunk, do drugs, have sex, etc. in college and dispense entirely with the morals they grew up with.

It's quite easy to have a very strong moral code without believing in a higher being. Atheism doesn't equate to selfishness. I'm not atheistic (though I am agnostic), but I don't see how you'd come to this determination at all.

Never mind those atheists who actually grew up in the church and thus have that moral "church background" that you seem to believe is important.

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:your evidence for the greater immorality of American Atheists being...?

Being their lack of a moral code. Whenever atheists hear this they take it personally. I'm not talking about you or Neo or Simon or anyone in particular. You guys could have great morals for all I know. In fact, I suspect a large reason why people my age become atheist is because they want to get drunk, do drugs, have sex, etc. in college and dispense entirely with the morals they grew up with.

I would state that those people who become atheist for those reasons really AREN'T atheist. They're just using it as an excuse to act as they want to.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:your evidence for the greater immorality of American Atheists being...?

While I absolutely agree that Atheists can be moral, I think it is often perceived that atheists are less moral. This perception alone would be a detriment in politics.

Possibly, I suppose...yet I don't believe that would be the case. My reason for that belief is that within the election run-up, any significant moral issues would come through pretty loudly (both positive and negative) and I think it would be easy enough to fend off the detractors who are trying to use that perception against them.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Strife wrote:[


I spent my summer last year at Harvard Law thank you very much. You should really consider learning something about someone before judging an education.

and yet you still don't understand basic sampling..... typical.

And yet you still can't quote correctly, and don't realize how ignorant you come off by simply taking that segment of my post. Is it that you have nothing left to fight with, did the poor person get outwitted by a young seventeen year old man. And for the record an ellipsis is only "..." So you can further your knowledge.


As the absolute end of this. May I ask where you acquired your education?

Edit: If you're embarrassed you may PM me, I won't tell anyone.

Strife wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Strife wrote:[


I spent my summer last year at Harvard Law thank you very much. You should really consider learning something about someone before judging an education.

and yet you still don't understand basic sampling..... typical.

And yet you still can't quote correctly, and don't realize how ignorant you come off by simply taking that segment of my post. Is it that you have nothing left to fight with, did the poor person get outwitted by a young seventeen year old man. And for the record an ellipsis is only "..." So you can further your knowledge.


As the absolute end of this. May I ask where you acquired your education?

Edit: If you're embarrassed you may PM me, I won't tell anyone.

I don't give out personal details, but I have taught a few Harvard PhDs sampling techniques.

Then some personal things happened and that's all I will say.

But it is pretty typical for fancy studies be constructed with wonderful data collection, great statistics, but just plain ask the wrong question or pose it the wrong way.

And arrogance helps no one. If you are going to judge everyone's worth and intelligence by "where they went to school"... you have a LOT of education and growing up left to do. And you will miss out on meeting and learning from some pretty wonderful people.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Strife wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Strife wrote:[


I spent my summer last year at Harvard Law thank you very much. You should really consider learning something about someone before judging an education.

and yet you still don't understand basic sampling..... typical.

And yet you still can't quote correctly, and don't realize how ignorant you come off by simply taking that segment of my post. Is it that you have nothing left to fight with, did the poor person get outwitted by a young seventeen year old man. And for the record an ellipsis is only "..." So you can further your knowledge.


As the absolute end of this. May I ask where you acquired your education?

Edit: If you're embarrassed you may PM me, I won't tell anyone.

I don't give out personal details, but I have taught a few Harvard PhDs sampling techniques.

Then some personal things happened and that's all I will say.

But it is pretty typical for fancy studies be constructed with wonderful data collection, great statistics, but just plain ask the wrong question or pose it the wrong way.

And arrogance helps no one. If you are going to judge everyone's worth and intelligence by "where they went to school"... you have a LOT of education and growing up left to do. And you will miss out on meeting and learning from some pretty wonderful people.

I'm not judging anyone, you were.
I simply retaliated. I only decided to ask because I've looked through your posts and seen quite a few spelling errors for someone who was making fun of my education.

But thanks for answering.

Strife wrote:[
I'm not judging anyone, you were.
.

I judged you when you decided that instead of intelligent conversation you were going to "grace" me with all these wonderful words you learned on the playground.

And you most definitely asked for that judgement.

You obviously don't know enough about the world to even listen to people who think differently than you, nver mind understand them.. except possibly in a purely esoteric and scholastic sense. Too bad. I thought Harvard was getting away from turning out self-righteous snobs. Seems they are back on that track.

And yes, that absolutely is judgement.

I'm still waiting to hear from the ten people who said no.

xelabale wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Haha, 8% wouldn't vote for a woman. There's 8% of the population that needs to not vote ever again...then again I suppose that's true for anyone who bases their votes on race, religion, or level of gayness.

They're entitled to their opinion and their vote - that's kinda the point isn't it?

aperantly not you can not have your own veiws you must conform no have your own thoughts there be none of that

muy_thaiguy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Bush claimed to be a Christian, but made some of the worst decisions in our country's history. That speaks for itself.

So no Christian makes bad decisions? At least he did what he thought was right (not saying it was, just saying that he at least had the balls to actually do so, and you don't see that often anymore).

i agree to many people in this world will not just go out and try to fix somthing. why cause they think talking is better or they just dont want to offend anyone bush is not the worst president if you say he is you are a dumb ass who knows nothing about history read up on it and you will realise bush is ok.

Simon Viavant wrote:I'm still waiting to hear from the ten people who said no.

its not like you dont know why though. There are plenty of reasons for a Christian or any other religious person for that matter to vote their values. Sadly at times, that means they would not vote for someone who doesnt share those particular values or whatever the person believes is the political manifestation thereof. Does it seem unfortunate that people have probably had to lie about religious values in order to move foward in a political career? Of course. It is disappointing that a person like myself, if I ever was so bold to declare myself qualified, would probably have a very slim chance of being elected if we set other variables equal? Yeah it is. Is it the end of the world? No.

Hopefully in time peoples opinions will change. Granted that isnt an excuse to do nothing and wait, but its also probably good for one's mental health to realize what situation you are dealing with and what you can realistically do about it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Strife wrote:[
I'm not judging anyone, you were.
.

I judged you when you decided that instead of intelligent conversation you were going to "grace" me with all these wonderful words you learned on the playground.

And you most definitely asked for that judgement.

You obviously don't knw enough about the world to even listen to people who think differently than you, nvermind understand them.. except possibly in a purely esoteric and scholastic sense. Too bad. I thought Harvard was getting away from turning out self-righteous snobs. Seems they are back on that track.

And yes, that absolutely is judgement.

Edit: I decided the bolded and italic are the best parts.

You could not trust an atheist to keep there promise they made in the Oath of Ofice.

JJM wrote:You could not trust an atheist to keep there promise they made in the Oath of Ofice.

You can't trust a politician to do that either, but it seems they keep winning.

LYR wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:Don't vote if you're not religious.

Hence the "I'm not religious" option.

Yeah, can we get a "I don't vote in forum polls" option on this forum poll?

targetman377 wrote:

xelabale wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Haha, 8% wouldn't vote for a woman. There's 8% of the population that needs to not vote ever again...then again I suppose that's true for anyone who bases their votes on race, religion, or level of gayness.

They're entitled to their opinion and their vote - that's kinda the point isn't it?

aperantly not you can not have your own veiws you must conform no have your own thoughts there be none of that

No, I don't respect people who think men are the only ones that can rule, and the idea of them having a say in the way anything outside of their personal lives is run is appalling. There is a difference between having "your own veiws" and being a gigantic bigot.

I didn't read any of the posts, because I'm annoyed at the answer to the poll question, and, frankly, ashamed.

I voted for the first answer, it's the correct one if you are a citizen of the US, everyone who voted for #2 is wrong and should re-examine their lives to figure out if they should be permitted to attend school and/or graduate and/or have a job. The moronic nature of people answering the poll question as #2 just shows that many Europeans and other Americans are correct about people in the US being morons.

JJM wrote:You could not trust an atheist to keep there promise they made in the Oath of Ofice.

Yes thats true, but religious people (especially politicians ) also lie so whats your point ?

A candidate's faith or lack of it has never yet been a deciding factor in the casting of my vote.

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:your evidence for the greater immorality of American Atheists being...?

Being their lack of a moral code. Whenever atheists hear this they take it personally. I'm not talking about you or Neo or Simon or anyone in particular. You guys could have great morals for all I know. In fact, I suspect a large reason why people my age become atheist is because they want to get drunk, do drugs, have sex, etc. in college and dispense entirely with the morals they grew up with.

Wow! That's so condescending!

Really though, I wish you guys would realise that your ideas about atheists are completely ridiculous.

Snorri1234 wrote:Really though, I wish you guys would realise that your ideas about atheists are completely ridiculous.

Agreed... this is kind of sickening.

Snorri1234 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:your evidence for the greater immorality of American Atheists being...?

Being their lack of a moral code. Whenever atheists hear this they take it personally. I'm not talking about you or Neo or Simon or anyone in particular. You guys could have great morals for all I know. In fact, I suspect a large reason why people my age become atheist is because they want to get drunk, do drugs, have sex, etc. in college and dispense entirely with the morals they grew up with.

Wow! That's so condescending!

Whoo! I missed that one. I'm glad you pointed it out.

For the record, I started the alcohol/drugs/sex before I considered myself an atheist, and they never had anything to do with my addressing the issue of the existence of a god or the moral codes associated with one (I was around 19, I think, when I finally came to my initial conclusions, which were, admittedly, less intellectually mature than they are now).

A dear friend of mine is an atheist, as are both of her parents. If she believed in Jesus Christ, she would be a better Christian than me. Her family is more cohesive than most Christian families I know. Saying that atheists have no morals is generalizing to an unacceptable extent.

I think amoralists tend to be atheists, and I even tend to think that the percentage of amoralists tends to be higher among atheists than theists (it's simply far easier to argue that morals don't matter if you deny the existence of god), but as far as the poll question goes that's completely irrelevant. A number of atheists are truly good people legitimately seeking truth. I tend to think that, in addition, there are a great number who are arrogant douchebags who desperately need the ego-trip of calling theists stupid, ignorant, and unscientific on a completely immature intellectual basis. On the other hand, I could say the same thing about theists - there are sincere truth seekers and there are egotistical douchebags whose intellects never develop past puberty.

So again, the point as far as this poll is concerned is that generalizing who I would vote for based on religion or lack thereof is ridiculous. Case by case basis, for people of all religions or lack thereof.

I'm a practicing Catholic. I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. I started drinking at age 17. I started carousing at age 14. George Bush starting doing coke in college. Religion and morals have little to do with each other for practical purposes.

Seriously, this poll disturbs me greatly.