Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, it seems as though you cling to blanket stereotypes, which is exactly the act for which you are condemning conservatives.
Again, you fail to understand that my precautions toward conservatives does conservatives no harm at all. You can't compare this to police profiling, because police profiling actually do people harm. Has it occurred to you that I've been burned at a job before because of who I date?
No, I do not consider myself first and foremost a homo. But who we date comes out every time we mention our spouse. For straight guys, they talk about "*****" and "camel toes" all the time. At company events, wives and girlfriends are very often brought along. So, again, while we are not first and foremost what we are sexually, it is a very visible part of life.
I fail to understand why you are disturbed by what I think. The corporate world is conservative for the most part. Society at large is conservative for the most part. I've been through 3 careers (law enforcement, IT, and engineering) and people who work in all 3 of these niches are conservative, hetero, and homophobic by nature. They're also very white for the most part.
You guys have control of the corporate world, the christian America, and pretty much most other aspects of life. Why be bothered by peon me? Be proud that those of us who want to excel in your world has too live in the shadows. You've won. Don't be a sore winner.
It's a great one. Liberal altruism has shielded people from the consequences of mother nature. Before idiots or those unable to provide a living would be shunned by society and more importantly fertile women. Now they can adopt a hyper masculine posture and sleep with as many women that will have them. No consequences really.
Again, you fail to understand that my precautions toward conservatives does conservatives no harm at all. You can't compare this to police profiling, because police profiling actually do people harm. Has it occurred to you that I've been burned at a job before because of who I date?
No, I do not consider myself first and foremost a homo. But who we date comes out every time we mention our spouse. For straight guys, they talk about "*****" and "camel toes" all the time. At company events, wives and girlfriends are very often brought along. So, again, while we are not first and foremost what we are sexually, it is a very visible part of life.
I fail to understand why you are disturbed by what I think. The corporate world is conservative for the most part. Society at large is conservative for the most part. I've been through 3 careers (law enforcement, IT, and engineering) and people who work in all 3 of these niches are conservative, hetero, and homophobic by nature. They're also very white for the most part.
You guys have control of the corporate world, the christian America, and pretty much most other aspects of life. Why be bothered by peon me? Be proud that those of us who want to excel in your world has too live in the shadows. You've won. Don't be a sore winner.
According to this article,
It is pretty certain that some folks believe Pedophilia More Common Among 'Gays'
Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.
"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.
Let me make myself very clear here, as a heterosexual Christian woman, (Libertarian Republican) I am all for gay right and gay marriage. and I think the above article is ridiculous. Certainly one cannot believe that all gays or majority of the gays are child molesters. Believe this is bigotry.
There are straight pedophiles.
There are gay pedophiles.
There are bisexual pedophiles.
There are male pedophiles.
There are female pedophiles.
There is only one common factor: They are all pedophiles. They are mentally disturbed and it has nothing to do with their gender or sexual orientation.
You are a homosexual male, I am 99.99% positive that you won't feel comfortable if people automatically think you are a pedophile who would molest their child.
How can you support profiling based on other people's Political Affiliation alone?!
How can you support profiling based on other people's Political Affiliation alone?!
Again, I would not profile if it harms anyone else. My profiling keeps me safe. The people who burned me in a past job were some of the most friendly people I've ever met right up to when I realized what had been done to me. If you met my boyfriend's parents, you'd think they are the nicest christians you've ever met. Until you find out they threw their son out into the streets when he was 15.
It's not like I'm the emperor of the universe where what I think affects other people's lives. I'm just a lowly and nerdy asian american trying to survive in corporate America.
Again, why do you guys keep ignoring the fact that the republican party voted to ban the main republican gay group from their convention last year? That says a lot about the typical conservative attitude.
I don't care that what I think isn't politically correct. It keeps me safe from the likes of conservatives that are the nicest people you've ever met until they burn you because they think they got a mandate from god to do so.
From which group are more children most likely to come from?
Dumb people create MORE unplanned/unprepared/unwanted pregnancies.
Smart people create FEWER unplanned/unprepared/unwanted pregnancies.
From which group are more children most likely to come from?
The math isn't that hard, and the data pretty much tells you what direction the population growth is going.
I continue to be underwhelmed by this kind of surface level thinking.
Here is a quick thought I had when I read the OP, but I didn't want to create this long post explaining my quick thought, but here goes.
Ok income in America is not distributed equally. Older workers generally make a lot more than younger workers.
The highest earning age cohort I think is people ages 55-64 followed people ages 45-54 followed by people ages 35-44 followed by people ages 64 and older.
In other words in American society, the people under 35 yrs have the lowest incomes by far.
There is huge income gap between older and younger Americans in household income. It's like double. Meaning those 35yrs and older have household incomes nearly double of those households headed by people 35yrs and younger.
Yet younger people by definition are going to be the people having children. And by younger I mean women and men in their twenties to early 30's.
And again these age cohorts by far make the least amount of money.
So, this is the problem with saying lower income people have more children, because they are being compared with every household income even people too old to have children.
The only true comparison would be comparing people of child bearing ages of various incomes to one another.
Also, there is another implication in the reality that household incomes go up significantly for older workers.
A man and woman who are both 28 and they have a child is a snap shot of their household income at that time, not a future prediction of their income when they are 55.
The reality is that by nature younger people are going to be the people who have the most children.
By reality income is highly correlated to age in America, which means you are comparing the incomes of 63 year old couples to the income of 30yr olds who'll be having the children, you are going to get skewed results.
Because those 63yr olds aren't going to have children period and there incomes are probably a lot higher than the 30yr olds.
Also when you say hey this 30yr old couples house hold income is whatever, understand that is a snapshot in time, that this's 30yr old will get older and their incomes will increase.
This is what I mean about lazy and boring thinking about various topics.
32 percent of all children with married parents – 15.5 million – live in low-income families.
70 percent of all children with a single parent – 16.9 million – live in low-income families.
It is quite clear domestic policies should concentrate on reducing the bastardization rate.
Will the ignorant baby daddies and breeders inherit the Earth? After seeing what I've been seeing, I'm scared for our future.
I have the exact same fears. I'm also a homo, although not all that liberal. I believe people should be able to do what they want....but I draw the line when it comes to kids. I think kids should be born to their married, opposite sex, biological parents. I'm even a bit reticent even about gay couples adopting kids, although I definitely think this is better than people having kids out of wedlock, which is a disaster for children (and parents, too). Even some liberals are now admitting it.
It's true, the middle class and upper middle class aren't having many kids. And the working class/poor are having more of them and most are having them out of wedlock. This combination simply does not bode well for society. There's no getting around it.
The truly rich seem to have more kids than average, but they are too small a slice of the population to make a significant difference.
We hear all this talk in the media of income/wealth inequality...but we hear precious little of the issues you brought up. I've noticed a few media outlets have mentioned the out of wedlock birth issue recently, but it's nowhere on the level it needs to be. IMO, a huge part of income/wealth inequality is because of our 41% out of wedlock birth rate and the fact that the middle/upper middle class don't have as many kids. There's also much talk about how greedy Big Business is and how they're hurting the little guy (somewhat true). But we hear precious little about how government policy of subsidized housing/food stamps/welfare encourage those with low expectations to have kids out of wedlock. When conservatives say it, they are demonized and vilified in the media as "stealing from the children" and other such nonsense.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 08-19-2014 at 10:15 PM..
It may 'suggest' it, but how do you determine IQ of people in history? You can't objectively measure it. There was no such thing as an "IQ test" in 1900 and just a century ago, the idea of testing intelligence by a test was experimental and rare.
Anyone basing any presumptions on such a complete lack of objective data is not, themselves, objectively intelligent.
The studies were conducted from 1889 to 2004.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
