quote:

You wanted to imply that I had said it was both routine and happened often.

quote:

Sorry you couldn't comprehend it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

If school boards across the country are doing this on a regular basis, and it does happen often, you have to admit that the school board having a policy like this has influence on the local people.

Emphases mine.

Using a number two pencil, fill the blanks below with actual data.

Regular = _________________________

Often = ___________________________

1. Eliza Cary, a 12-year-old in Nebraska, was reprimanded for wearing a cross necklace.

2. In 2010, a similar incident occurred in upstate New York, when 13-year-old Raymond Hosier wore a rosary to school as a reminder of his deceased brother.

3. A Sonoma State University student was ordered to remove a cross necklace by a supervisor who thought other students might find it offensive, in a case that prompted even one campus official to speculate that “political correctness got out of hand.”

Audrey Jarvis, 19, a liberal arts major at the northern California university, said she had no choice but to seek a “religious accommodation” in order to wear the cross.

4. When 8th-grader Christian Thompson was suspended last month for wearing a Catholic cross at Blocker Middle School, he was incredulous. But he shouldn't have been surprised. Schools across the nation have been expanding their lists of banned items and activities, and many of them prohibit the wearing of jewelry, hair styles and various kinds of clothing.

Most schools in America ban a select list of items, such as fluorescent pink hair or U.S. flag t-shirts, but officials at New District High School in San Fernando, California, prohibited everything that other students, teachers or parents might find objectionable. Considered the "most politically correct school in the nation," New District adopted a ban that is so broad that it led to a prohibition of clothing, jewelry and even hair. Consequently, the school board during its April meeting voted to shorten the school's name to New Dist High.

5. Here’s a tough question: Where might it break the law to wear a Star of David around your neck?

(Hint, the answer is not Nazi Germany.)

Give up? The correct response is the Township of East Pennsboro, Pa., where one man has a filed a formal complaint with the school district after his son’s teacher wore a Star of David necklace to class.

“[Students] are there to learn about education, not to learn about religion,” Ernest Perce, the offended parent told a local ABC affiliate.

6. The ACLU of Texas on Thursday requested that Brownsville Independent School District (BISD) disclose policies, procedures, and practices relating to students’ right to freely exercise their religious faith, including their right to wear religious attire at school.

The ACLU of Texas specifically asked for information about Rivera High School’s new policy that prohibits students from wearing rosaries or crosses visibly at school.

7. RNS) Arkansas State is removing a Christian cross decal from the back of its football helmets after a complaint that it violated separation of church and state, the university said Wednesday (Sept. 10).

Athletics director Terry Mohajir said he wanted to fight the decision because the decal was intended to honor former player Markel Owens and equipment manager Barry Weyer, who both died this year. However, Mohajir said he had little choice but to follow advice from the university’s legal counsel to remove or modify the symbol.

Rebecca Markert, an attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said her organization had been looking into the matter since hearing about the decals over the weekend but had not yet lodged a formal complaint with Arkansas State.

“That is great news,” Markert said of the school’s decision. “Putting religious imagery on public school property is unconstitutional.". (No...it is not)

Shall I continue?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
My point which most seem to be missing is that Sharia Law is straight out of the Old Testament book of Leviticus which is the SAME part of the Bible that a lot of RW policymakers use to drum up support for their causes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Those who want to ban the wearing of religious items in public buildings, those who oppose posting copies of the Ten Commandments on personal lockers and notebook covers, those who want to stop someone from wearing a wristband in class that says "protect life" on it are those who you say don't exist.

How numerous or influential are these folks?

Does it matter? Or, does the US Constitution only apply to some?

To my mind, knowing whether these censor wannabes are numerous and/or influential is awfully handy for assessing how grave a threat they pose to the First Amendment.
Ymmv, of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Cons are much more motivated by fear than libs are.

Oh goody, let's play the research game.

In a 2009 study Haidt and two of his colleagues presented more than 8,000 people with a series of hypothetical actions. Among them: kick a dog in the head; discard a box of ballots to help your candidate win; publicly bet against a favorite sports team; curse your parents to their faces; and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say whether they would do these deeds for money and, if so, for how much—$10? $1,000? $100,000? More? Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million, but they were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories.
~Scientific American

Are we having fun yet?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
FR
Does know one here understand the difference between fear and oppose?
Or is it just a given that conservatives are too primitive to be motivated by any higher response than fear?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Most schools in America ban a select list of items, such as fluorescent pink hair or U.S. flag t-shirts, but officials at New District High School in San Fernando, California, prohibited everything that other students, teachers or parents might find objectionable. Considered the "most politically correct school in the nation," New District adopted a ban that is so broad that it led to a prohibition of clothing, jewelry and even hair. Consequently, the school board during its April meeting voted to shorten the school's name to New Dist High.

Source: http://skinnyreporter.com/schoolbans.html

I'm guessing this is satire, given that the supposed principal's name is "Polly Andrus," and the PTA president is "Liv N. Wilder."

Also, I couldn't find a New District High School in San Fernando.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

If school boards across the country are doing this on a regular basis, and it does happen often, you have to admit that the school board having a policy like this has influence on the local people.

Emphases mine.

Using a number two pencil, fill the blanks below with actual data.

Regular = _________________________

Often = ___________________________

1. Eliza Cary, a 12-year-old in Nebraska, was reprimanded for wearing a cross necklace.

2. In 2010, a similar incident occurred in upstate New York, when 13-year-old Raymond Hosier wore a rosary to school as a reminder of his deceased brother.

3. A Sonoma State University student was ordered to remove a cross necklace by a supervisor who thought other students might find it offensive, in a case that prompted even one campus official to speculate that “political correctness got out of hand.”

Audrey Jarvis, 19, a liberal arts major at the northern California university, said she had no choice but to seek a “religious accommodation” in order to wear the cross.

4. When 8th-grader Christian Thompson was suspended last month for wearing a Catholic cross at Blocker Middle School, he was incredulous. But he shouldn't have been surprised. Schools across the nation have been expanding their lists of banned items and activities, and many of them prohibit the wearing of jewelry, hair styles and various kinds of clothing.

Most schools in America ban a select list of items, such as fluorescent pink hair or U.S. flag t-shirts, but officials at New District High School in San Fernando, California, prohibited everything that other students, teachers or parents might find objectionable. Considered the "most politically correct school in the nation," New District adopted a ban that is so broad that it led to a prohibition of clothing, jewelry and even hair. Consequently, the school board during its April meeting voted to shorten the school's name to New Dist High.

5. Here’s a tough question: Where might it break the law to wear a Star of David around your neck?

(Hint, the answer is not Nazi Germany.)

Give up? The correct response is the Township of East Pennsboro, Pa., where one man has a filed a formal complaint with the school district after his son’s teacher wore a Star of David necklace to class.

“[Students] are there to learn about education, not to learn about religion,” Ernest Perce, the offended parent told a local ABC affiliate.

6. The ACLU of Texas on Thursday requested that Brownsville Independent School District (BISD) disclose policies, procedures, and practices relating to students’ right to freely exercise their religious faith, including their right to wear religious attire at school.

The ACLU of Texas specifically asked for information about Rivera High School’s new policy that prohibits students from wearing rosaries or crosses visibly at school.

7. RNS) Arkansas State is removing a Christian cross decal from the back of its football helmets after a complaint that it violated separation of church and state, the university said Wednesday (Sept. 10).

Athletics director Terry Mohajir said he wanted to fight the decision because the decal was intended to honor former player Markel Owens and equipment manager Barry Weyer, who both died this year. However, Mohajir said he had little choice but to follow advice from the university’s legal counsel to remove or modify the symbol.

Rebecca Markert, an attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said her organization had been looking into the matter since hearing about the decals over the weekend but had not yet lodged a formal complaint with Arkansas State.

“That is great news,” Markert said of the school’s decision. “Putting religious imagery on public school property is unconstitutional.". (No...it is not)

Shall I continue?

I haven't seen such cherry picking since the last time the lefties pointed out all the people who had died because of guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
FR
Does know one here understand the difference between fear and oppose?
Or is it just a given that conservatives are too primitive to be motivated by any higher response than fear?

I think the latter is the intended implication.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
FR
Does know one here understand the difference between fear and oppose?
Or is it just a given that conservatives are too primitive to be motivated by any higher response than fear?

I think the latter is the intended implication.

Nah

It was a simple case of the OP projecting

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Most schools in America ban a select list of items, such as fluorescent pink hair or U.S. flag t-shirts, but officials at New District High School in San Fernando, California, prohibited everything that other students, teachers or parents might find objectionable. Considered the "most politically correct school in the nation," New District adopted a ban that is so broad that it led to a prohibition of clothing, jewelry and even hair. Consequently, the school board during its April meeting voted to shorten the school's name to New Dist High.

Source: http://skinnyreporter.com/schoolbans.html
I'm guessing this is satire, given that the supposed principal's name is "Polly Andrus," and the PTA president is "Liv N. Wilder."
Also, I couldn't find a New District High School in San Fernando.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Cons are much more motivated by fear than libs are.

Oh goody, let's play the research game.

In a 2009 study Haidt and two of his colleagues presented more than 8,000 people with a series of hypothetical actions. Among them: kick a dog in the head; discard a box of ballots to help your candidate win; publicly bet against a favorite sports team; curse your parents to their faces; and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say whether they would do these deeds for money and, if so, for how much—$10? $1,000? $100,000? More? Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million, but they were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories. ~Scientific American

Are we having fun yet?

K.

Yeah, a lot of fun, but you clearly didn't even read your own article. You linked to page 2 of the article but you clearly didn't read page 1:

Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/?page=1

A video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nMzD1OmDE

What you discussed had nothing to do with Conservatives and fear, whereas the link I provided (to the same article mind you) did. Check and mate. Cant wait to see you worm your way out of that mistake [:D]

Wanted to add a link to the paper itself if you wanted to shell out some money just to be sure it isn't some liberal scheme to portray cons in a bad light: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9292100

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

probably the most important thing to know about differences in our brains is illustrated here:

[image]local://upfiles/1936645/5D7DC7C6096C426A99C9E9D278DBB151.gif[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Cons are much more motivated by fear than libs are.

Oh goody, let's play the research game.

In a 2009 study Haidt and two of his colleagues presented more than 8,000 people with a series of hypothetical actions. Among them: kick a dog in the head; discard a box of ballots to help your candidate win; publicly bet against a favorite sports team; curse your parents to their faces; and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say whether they would do these deeds for money and, if so, for how much—$10? $1,000? $100,000? More? Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million, but they were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories. ~Scientific American

Are we having fun yet?

K.

Yeah, a lot of fun, but you clearly didn't even read your own article. You linked to page 2 of the article but you clearly didn't read page 1:

Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/?page=1

A video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nMzD1OmDE

What you discussed had nothing to do with Conservatives and fear, whereas the link I provided (to the same article mind you) did. Check and mate. Cant wait to see you worm your way out of that mistake [:D]

Wanted to add a link to the paper itself if you wanted to shell out some money just to be sure it isn't some liberal scheme to portray cons in a bad light: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9292100

Have to say nice catch dood:)
you beat me too it..
There is one specific comment I thought hysterical but seems many of the righties would have a conniption
The SA article is hardly complimentary to either side...with good reason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Cons are much more motivated by fear than libs are.

Oh goody, let's play the research game.

In a 2009 study Haidt and two of his colleagues presented more than 8,000 people with a series of hypothetical actions. Among them: kick a dog in the head; discard a box of ballots to help your candidate win; publicly bet against a favorite sports team; curse your parents to their faces; and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say whether they would do these deeds for money and, if so, for how much—$10? $1,000? $100,000? More? Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million, but they were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories. ~Scientific American

Are we having fun yet?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Yeah, it's pretty much a given, glad you finally came to your senses [:D]

Then it is you who are delusional. I have known all along that many(note I did not say all) Libs are too arrogant to think we have a difference of opinion, and have to believe that anyone who disagrees with them has a fatal flaw. This is why they can't be reasoned with.

While I am guessing his was a tongue in cheek response, it's probably the most honest reply he has ever made.

Lol, well it's honest because it's true. If you look up the research, Cons are much more motivated by fear than libs are. If you're having trouble finding the research yourself just ask and I'd gladly link to it [:)]

Oh I am sure you can find links to back up your bigotry. I have seen other haters do it to justify their hatred of blacks and gays so why should this be any different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Cons are much more motivated by fear than libs are.

Oh goody, let's play the research game.

In a 2009 study Haidt and two of his colleagues presented more than 8,000 people with a series of hypothetical actions. Among them: kick a dog in the head; discard a box of ballots to help your candidate win; publicly bet against a favorite sports team; curse your parents to their faces; and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say whether they would do these deeds for money and, if so, for how much—$10? $1,000? $100,000? More? Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million, but they were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories.
~Scientific American

Are we having fun yet?

K.

Yeah, a lot of fun, but you clearly didn't even read your own article. You linked to page 2 of the article but you clearly didn't read page 1:

Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.”


Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative. Research conducted by Nail and his colleague in the weeks after September 11, 2001, showed that people of all political persuasions became more conservative in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, in an upcoming study, a team led by Yale University psychologist Jaime Napier found that asking Republicans to imagine that they possessed superpowers and were impermeable to injury made them more liberal. “There is some range within which people can be moved,” Jost says.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/?page=1

A video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nMzD1OmDE

What you discussed had nothing to do with Conservatives and fear, whereas the link I provided (to the same article mind you) did. Check and mate. Cant wait to see you worm your way out of that mistake [:D]

Wanted to add a link to the paper itself if you wanted to shell out some money just to be sure it isn't some liberal scheme to portray cons in a bad light: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9292100