I am one of the one's you speak of AP, since that came out out, I have bought 2 more pistols with larger capacity, in addition to the one's I already own .None of my guns are for hunting .........

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

I know this wasn't the point of your post, and we don't really need to engage in another 2nd Amemdment debate here, but the notion that Barack Obama is coming after everyone's guns is a fallacy.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f
 

i am not interested in a 2nd amemdment debate either.  I will say obama managed to position himself in a lose lose situation.  He didnt want to go after guns to hard but he did want gun control.  The fact he wanted some forms of gun control, launched a committie on the matter and put his second in comand in control of it pissed off pro gun people.  The results were they bought bought and bought the shit out of guns.  The gun world jumped on the bandwagon and scared the pro gun public as much as they could.  This drove everything up and caused even more sales.  In the end obama got nothing done and the anti gun world is unhappy with him.  how this relates to maxs arguement is that anti gun folks are the minority in america. That has been proven by the inablity for gun control to be passed.  By the minority trying to force the matter they only hurt their cause.  You can make an arguement that if john mccain would have been elected and reelected millions and millions of gun would have remained on the selfs at stores.  That is remarkable to me.  Also walmart took guns out of stores but since the gun scare has come up they have put them back out.  They saw the market and jumped on it.  Also rural king had to my knowledge never carried guns but now do.  Gun shops have poped up all over the area locally when there used to be very few.  Everyone has a right to there opinion.  I wholeheartedly agree to that.  However when your the minorityvoicing that opinion can make your problem worst.  That is what happens when you live in a free democracy.  

okay i am off my soapbox now.  
 

The gun debate is a little bit different than the religious debate because if I'm walking down the same street as Ted Nugent and Ted starts reciting scripture, I can ignore him, but if he pulls out a piece and starts waving it around, he's put me in danger as well.
I don't need to state my views about the 2nd Amendment for the umpteenth time. Everyone here knows them. 
 

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

"
You found many cases where I said I believed that the majority should respect the minority, to which you responded"

and how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority opinion?
 

#109 I didn't say "respecting the minority opinion".  I said "respecting the minority".

that doesnt change the question.  How?  
 

Which question?  

"how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority opinion?"

or

how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority?

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

#109 I didn't say "respecting the minority opinion".  I said "respecting the minority".

that doesnt change the question.  How?  
 

Which question?  

"how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority opinion?"

or

how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority?

how about you try answering both or at least one.  Hell you pick.  
 

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

" I don't remember losing many of these"

We have the Americans on the run.

Sincerely,

Baghdad Bob

Chuckle if you like, but as soon as you realized I was not saying that any rookie pitcher had suffered as a result of the promotion/demotion cycle, the debate ended.  Although I don't recall that you ever apologized for calling me a coward for not answering a question about something I did not say.   

The debate ended because you answered the question. More specifically, it ended when you no longer had the ability to come back a year from now and pay yourself on the back if Tyler Lyons never returns to the big leagues. It's like your nonsense about how you were right because in 2010 you said payroll "could" go up. Big whoop. Payroll "could" go up today. Payroll "could" go down. Payroll "could" stay the same.  Man am I smart, I just won 3 "debates" in 2 lines because all 3 of those statements are impossible of being disproven. But you never backed up your statement by saying where the money should be spent, and we let you get away with that. It wasn't happening this time. So you can claim victory in your mind, but as far as I'm concerned, that thread ended on my terms when you finally answered the question.  

You can spin your words however you want--the intent behind your original post on the topic was transparent. And don't hold your breath waiting on that apology, Corporal Upham (look it up if you need to).  It took you 4 pages of posts to answer. 

In the meantime, I'll just back and watch you "win" this discussion. You're doing so well. 

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

that doesnt change the question.  How?  
 

Which question?  

"how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority opinion?"

or

how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority?

how about you try answering both or at least one.  Hell you pick.  
 

Well, I have already said I disagree with the first one, and I was not sure why you seemed to be bringing it back up.  

The second one is a big field. I have a degree in a related field, but am not an expert in it.  I think they often use things like role playing in "sensitivity training".  I have never done anything like that, but I lived a minority for about 10 years, so I have a bit of experience.  My big #1 tip would be to learn about the minority, learn the triggers that piss them off about being a minority.  
 

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

#109 I didn't say "respecting the minority opinion".  I said "respecting the minority".

that doesnt change the question.  How?  
 

Which question?  

"how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority opinion?"

or

how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority?

This is probably going to come off as way too glib for this discussion, but I don't think I necessarily have to respect everyone's opinion. I have to acknowledge their beliefs, but I also reserve the right to think they're full of shit - i.e. if somone who believes in Allah thinks he's going to hang out with 72 virgins if he takes out a bunch of infidels with a suicide bomb, I think I have the right to deem that line of thinking utter nonsense.
And it's not just Mulslims who register on the bullshit meters. Every religion has implausible ideas that if proferred as new in today's society would likely get the proferrer committed to a psych ward.
 

Max wrote:

alz wrote:

Max a couple notes, and this is not a "belief".

I think if you examine this in strong detail, you'll understand that you're close from requesting that nobody "Thank god" in a post game interview, that nobody "Prays" when someone is injured, and that you never have to witness a cross hanging from a locker in a post game interview. 

I see the "bright line" difference.  Anyone is at liberty to say what they wish, decorate their bodies and work space with whatever they choose.  Indeed, that's what I am doing: speaking my mind.

People should not feel at liberty to make me say something, decorate my body and my work space.  

So, I don't see that it is a civl liberties issue to thank God, or point at the sky, wear a cross or tatoo "Jesus Loves Me" across your forehead.  It is sanctimonius and unbecoming, in my opinion, but it does not rise to the level of a civil liberties issue. 

On the other hand, requiring Jews to wear Star of David patches sewn onto their clothes clearly is a civil liberties issue.  To lesser degree, civil liberties issues were made--successfully--about requiring students to pledge an allegiance to the flag.  To a still lesser degree, but still clearly on the wrong side of the "bright line" test, in my opinion, is putting a religious symbol on a shared workspace.  

And, no, I do not think we should wait for Jews and Muslims and Atheists and whomever to complain.  It is the Christian majority who should stand up and say, "hey, maybe a religious symbol in a shared workspace is a bad idea."

Actually it would be the cardinals place or mlb front office.  It is their place of work and their right to control. 

artie_fufkin wrote:

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

that doesnt change the question.  How?  
 

Which question?  

"how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority opinion?"

or

how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority?

This is probably going to come off as way too glib for this discussion, but I don't think I necessarily have to respect everyone's opinion. I have to acknowledge their beliefs, but I also reserve the right to think they're full of shit - i.e. if somone who believes in Allah thinks he's going to hang out with 72 virgins if he takes out a bunch of infidels with a suicide bomb, I think I have the right to deem that line of thinking utter nonsense.
And it's not just Mulslims who register on the bullshit meters. Every religion has implausible ideas that if proferred as new in today's society would likely get the proferrer committed to a psych ward.
 

Indeed.  As I posted before to AP's question, in a democracy it is the minority that must respect the opinions/decisions of the majority . . . in theory anyway.  And obviously there are lots of crazy opinions out that there that need not be respected.  So, the question as it was first phrased was not an accurate reflection of the point I was making.  
 

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

Which question?  

"how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority opinion?"

or

how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority?

how about you try answering both or at least one.  Hell you pick.  
 

Well, I have already said I disagree with the first one, and I was not sure why you seemed to be bringing it back up.  

The second one is a big field. I have a degree in a related field, but am not an expert in it.  I think they often use things like role playing in "sensitivity training".  I have never done anything like that, but I lived a minority for about 10 years, so I have a bit of experience.  My big #1 tip would be to learn about the minority, learn the triggers that piss them off about being a minority.  
 

as far as i know this isnt about being a minority.  It is about having an opinion that is of the minority.  We dont know what religion or race the guy who wrote the letter is.  Not sure why it would matter either.

Also just because you are jewish it doesnt mean you find the cross offensive.  I am not offended by other religious symbols.  It isnt like the cross is swastika or the letters kkk.  It isnt ment to hurt anyones feelings.  Anyone who has their feeling hurt by it might want to stand over a bowl of warm water untill their testicals desend.

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Actually it would be the cardinals place or mlb front office.  It is their place of work and their right to control. 

There is a balance between management and employees. The players are the employees in this model and more than one player shares the workspace of the mound.  That was my point.

In any case, most careful corporations shy away from controversy, and my guess is that someone within the Cards management will spread the word that scrawled images on the playing surface should not be of a controversial nature.

What is your opinion on company xmass parties or companies putting up xmass trees?  Xmass bonus or gift?  
 

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Actually it would be the cardinals place or mlb front office.  It is their place of work and their right to control. 

There is a balance between management and employees. The players are the employees in this model and more than one player shares the workspace of the mound.  That was my point.

In any case, most careful corporations shy away from controversy, and my guess is that someone within the Cards management will spread the word that scrawled images on the playing surface should not be of a controversial nature.

What is your opinion on company xmass parties or companies putting up xmass trees?  Xmass bonus or gift?  
 

I work in the newspaper industry, so you'll have to remind me what a "Christmas bonus" is.
In December, the boss puts a little Christmas tree on top of a file cabinet, and some of the ladies in the circulation department hang ornaments and garland from the cubicles. I've never been remotely close to being offended.