The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Red vs. blue explained by white birth rate & Darwinian rational
This is going nowhere, and you're getting condescending. Farewell.
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Religion and morality
Quote:
Todd |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
congrats
Congratulations, Fred, your brilliant master strategy of unwavering recalcitrance has netted you yet another grand victory in this forum. And you didn't even need me as a stooge this time!
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Red vs. blue explained by white birth rate & Darwinian rational
Oh Todd, you’re no stooge . . . and, I suppose that Lizzie did make some amazing points—here’re a few of her better ones:
Quote:
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Red vs. blue explained by white birth rate & Darwinian rational
Quote:
There must be something in the fashion world that I wouldn't have guessed; my wife is also an Atheist and got a Bachelor's in fashion! Whoda guessed!?!?! You said so many things I agreed with that I have only one to pick on: I believe that it's beyond perilous to assign causes to effects. To illustrate what I mean, I WON'T defend this 'cause' but offer it as an alternative to what you've assigned as a cause (smarter, more successful populations) to the red vs blue federal receipts: perhaps those blue states have the majority of the 'best' places to live (I'd rather be in ANY of the top 10 paying states than ANY of the top 10 takers, and I suspect that you would too), the 'best' places have the highest costs of living, require the highest salaries, and pay the most income tax. These most comfortable places to live also attract the most indigents who vote in Democrats who take from the rich and give to the poor. |
|
|