The Irony Oremine

[dax00]

This is like a few hours back in the IRC. I'm not going to waste time here, you guys clearly aren't willing to listen to any opposing viewpoints. Feel free to live in your echo chambers, but when you want to break out, we won't be there to help you.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Possibly the worst genre of "music" ever created.

Freedom genre.  Its legacy lives on.

You're a Christian and you think that? Wow.

How is that ironic? Yes I'm a Christian but I don't listen to anti-Christian edgelord music like black metal.

I believe Kal is either poking fun at your "hipster Christianity," your occasionally sanctimonious attitude toward musical genres, or both.  Either way, the music that someone listens to says nothing about their religious beliefs and it's odd of you to think otherwise.

[This account no longer in use.]

If you can't handle the truth, I suggest you try the ignore function.

[°Leprechaun]

If you can't handle the truth, I suggest you try the ignore function.

I see you haven't figured out how to use the ignore function.

[This account no longer in use.]

Reading this makes my head hurt. If we're going to talk about this s, can we just do it without the clever sarcasm?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Reading this makes my head hurt. If we're going to talk about this s, can we just do it without the clever sarcasm?

no irony here; willips dimton doesn't do clever sarcasm, because that would necessitate beïng clever.

[beaver2.0]

Also, there are other reasons why I dislike NH: Most NH voters are fake Independents, the state is full of elitist leftists, Democrats (and some Republicans) masquerading as Independents, faux moderates, sexists and racists (yes, you saw that right), annoying Independents who have no ideology whatsoever and get swayed so easily that it's both hilarious and pathetic, voters who give corrupt power-hungry politcians like Maggie Hassan a 70% approval rating, etc. etc. I could go on and on. I actually consider ME to be the "real" NH. It's much more independent and I hope the Republicans will be able to compete there in presidential elections one day. Oh, and the media constantly praising NH as the best place on earth makes the state even more terrible.

There is some irony to this post being displayed above a picture in this posters signature that shows television footage of George Bush winning New Hampshire entitled: "The Good Old Days".

[This account no longer in use.]

Arch, we're not counting on any response from you. You are too far gone. No chance of ever convincing you to support Trump.

That's why your comments about Trump's tactics don't matter.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

K just gonna assume you're some random edgy 13 year old white boy like 2/3 of this forum.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

K just gonna assume you're some random edgy 13 year old white boy like 2/3 of this forum.

d123213223 is asian, but apart from that…

[This account no longer in use.]

Wow, Hillary hacks are unhinged.

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

A social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic, especially to condemn a type of marriage in this day and age is nothing but ironic.

[BundouYMB]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

A social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic, especially to condemn a type of marriage in this day and age is nothing but ironic.

Dude, wtf? Are you implying that there's something inherently wrong with thinking of the children? Just because Republicans have used it as a strawman on *different issues* does not mean that the psychological health of children isn't important. There's nothing wrong or ironic about that post.

Also, I like how you use "a type of marriage." So because I support gay marriage I'm obligated to support all types of marriages? What about marriage between adults and children? What if I oppose that because of the effect it has on the children? Am I "ironic" because I'm a social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic in "this day and age?"

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

A social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic, especially to condemn a type of marriage in this day and age is nothing but ironic.

Dude, wtf? Are you implying that there's something inherently wrong with thinking of the children? Just because Republicans have used it as a strawman on *different issues* does not mean that the psychological health of children isn't important. There's nothing wrong or ironic about that post.

Also, I like how you use "a type of marriage." So because I support gay marriage I'm obligated to support all types of marriages? What about marriage between adults and children? What if I oppose that because of the effect it has on the children? Am I "ironic" because I'm a social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic in "this day and age?"

You're being disingenuous. There's a very good reason "think of the children" is quoted, obviously because of the old '90's GOP Moral Panic tactic which is exactly what is being employed in context.

Obviously you're not obligated to support all marriages, but you should at least hear out ones that involve unions between legally consenting parties who love each other without resorting to the type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine.

[BundouYMB]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

A social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic, especially to condemn a type of marriage in this day and age is nothing but ironic.

Dude, wtf? Are you implying that there's something inherently wrong with thinking of the children? Just because Republicans have used it as a strawman on *different issues* does not mean that the psychological health of children isn't important. There's nothing wrong or ironic about that post.

Also, I like how you use "a type of marriage." So because I support gay marriage I'm obligated to support all types of marriages? What about marriage between adults and children? What if I oppose that because of the effect it has on the children? Am I "ironic" because I'm a social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic in "this day and age?"

You're being disingenuous. There's a very good reason "think of the children" is quoted, obviously because of the old '90's GOP Moral Panic tactic which is exactly what is being employed in context.

Obviously you're not obligated to support all marriages, but you should at least hear out ones that involve unions between legally consenting parties who love each other without resorting to the type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine.

LOL.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psychological+effects+on+children+polygamy

Literally from the first link, a thoroughly cited and well written paper:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the second link, an actual academic paper examining the considerable body of research on this subject:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the third link, another academic paper on polygamy in Syria:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, these papers are all "[the] type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine." It totally isn't a thoroughly researched and established fact that polygamy has negative psychological effects on women (all three links go into extensive detail on the negative psychological effects polygamy has been documented to have on women as well) and children.

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

A social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic, especially to condemn a type of marriage in this day and age is nothing but ironic.

Dude, wtf? Are you implying that there's something inherently wrong with thinking of the children? Just because Republicans have used it as a strawman on *different issues* does not mean that the psychological health of children isn't important. There's nothing wrong or ironic about that post.

Also, I like how you use "a type of marriage." So because I support gay marriage I'm obligated to support all types of marriages? What about marriage between adults and children? What if I oppose that because of the effect it has on the children? Am I "ironic" because I'm a social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic in "this day and age?"

You're being disingenuous. There's a very good reason "think of the children" is quoted, obviously because of the old '90's GOP Moral Panic tactic which is exactly what is being employed in context.

Obviously you're not obligated to support all marriages, but you should at least hear out ones that involve unions between legally consenting parties who love each other without resorting to the type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine.

LOL.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psychological+effects+on+children+polygamy

Literally from the first link, a thoroughly cited and well written paper:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the second link, an actual academic paper examining the considerable body of research on this subject:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the third link, another academic paper on polygamy in Syria:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, these papers are all "[the] type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine." It totally isn't a thoroughly researched and established fact that polygamy has negative psychological effects on women (all three links go into extensive detail on the negative psychological effects polygamy has been documented to have on women as well) and children.

Those are all studies of societies that are highly patriarchal from the outset and with shoddy human rights records, which makes all the difference. Unambiguous consent from sides is likely not much of a priority.

Excellent cautionary tale of what nearly unrestricted polygyny can do certainly [and that clears intentions up a little bit ].

However, it just can't account for all the doors that would be opened in the Western World where polyandry, gays and lesbians taking multiple wives and husbands, and bisexuals taking multiple spouses would all have to be considered. There's also a lot more human rights safeguards to consider that will drastically change the psychological effect.

For now, the closest (but imperfect) actual examples would be to look at the effects of polyamory on children.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201301/is-polyamory-bad-the-children

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201510/fear-damage-children-in-polyamorous-families

These suggest that any flaws in those families (and by extension what polygamy would more likely look like by the way the culture wars are going) come from the people themselves rather than the practice, and that there are strengths as well as weaknesses.

And I'm writing no more on the subject (neither here nor the topic in IP), because frankly I'm mostly ambivalent anyway on the topic that started this whole thing (at least until it becomes mainstream debate between partisans)...I just seethingly loathe the "think of the children" line most of the time, especially in regards to alternative families.

[dead0man]

You're being disingenuous. There's a very good reason "think of the children" is quoted, obviously because of the old '90's GOP Moral Panic tactic which is exactly what is being employed in context.

Obviously you're not obligated to support all marriages, but you should at least hear out ones that involve unions between legally consenting parties who love each other without resorting to the type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine.

LOL.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psychological+effects+on+children+polygamy

Literally from the first link, a thoroughly cited and well written paper:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the third link, another academic paper on polygamy in Syria:

Do you really think studies from Jordan and Sryia have any bearing on how this would play out in a modern, western country.  You clearly don't like the idea that you sound like an old conservative lady from the 90s, but it doesn't change the fact that you do when you say (or defend someone else saying) "won't someone think of the children!?".

[BundouYMB]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

A social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic, especially to condemn a type of marriage in this day and age is nothing but ironic.

Dude, wtf? Are you implying that there's something inherently wrong with thinking of the children? Just because Republicans have used it as a strawman on *different issues* does not mean that the psychological health of children isn't important. There's nothing wrong or ironic about that post.

Also, I like how you use "a type of marriage." So because I support gay marriage I'm obligated to support all types of marriages? What about marriage between adults and children? What if I oppose that because of the effect it has on the children? Am I "ironic" because I'm a social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic in "this day and age?"

You're being disingenuous. There's a very good reason "think of the children" is quoted, obviously because of the old '90's GOP Moral Panic tactic which is exactly what is being employed in context.

Obviously you're not obligated to support all marriages, but you should at least hear out ones that involve unions between legally consenting parties who love each other without resorting to the type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine.

LOL.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psychological+effects+on+children+polygamy

Literally from the first link, a thoroughly cited and well written paper:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the second link, an actual academic paper examining the considerable body of research on this subject:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the third link, another academic paper on polygamy in Syria:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, these papers are all "[the] type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine." It totally isn't a thoroughly researched and established fact that polygamy has negative psychological effects on women (all three links go into extensive detail on the negative psychological effects polygamy has been documented to have on women as well) and children.

Those are all studies of societies that are highly patriarchal from the outset and with shoddy human rights records, which makes all the difference. Unambiguous consent from sides is likely not much of a priority.

Excellent cautionary tale of what nearly unrestricted polygyny can do certainly [and that clears intentions up a little bit ].

However, it just can't account for all the doors that would be opened in the Western World where polyandry, gays and lesbians taking multiple wives and husbands, and bisexuals taking multiple spouses would all have to be considered. There's also a lot more human rights safeguards to consider that will drastically change the psychological effect.

For now, the closest (but imperfect) actual examples would be to look at the effects of polyamory on children.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201301/is-polyamory-bad-the-children

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201510/fear-damage-children-in-polyamorous-families

These suggest that any flaws in those families (and by extension what polygamy would more likely look like by the way the culture wars are going) come from the people themselves rather than the practice, and that there are strengths as well as weaknesses.

And I'm writing no more on the subject (neither here nor the topic in IP), because frankly I'm mostly ambivalent anyway on the topic that started this whole thing (at least until it becomes mainstream debate between partisans)...I just seethingly loathe the "think of the children" line most of the time, especially in regards to alternative families.

There's just two things I'd like you to consider, though, and after that I'll drop the subject as well.

1). Yes, these studies are from societies that are "highly patriarchal from the outset and with shoddy human rights records," because those are the countries where polygamy is a widespread phenomenon and it's possible to study it.

Most of the studies on the subject are comparative, meaning they compare monogamous and polygamous marriages from the same regions in the same countries where both types of marriage are widespread. They are not comparisons between polygamous marriages in third world countries and monogamous marriages in first world countries, meaning the conditions in these societies should theoretically have no affect on a direct comparison.

2). Yes, studies on this topic do imply that problems in polygamous marriages "come from the people themselves rather than the practice," however you're ignoring the fact that women in polygamous marriages are more likely to suffer from psychological problems which in turn, these papers and their relevant citations seem to imply, creates a bad family situation where both the man and the women are more likely to be unhappy than men and women in monogamous relationships in the same area and in turn creates the problems in their children.

And, again, most of these are comparative studies between monogamous marriage and polygamous marriages in the same regions of the same countries. Monogamous marriages in these "highly patriarchal from the outset and with shoddy human rights records," countries are more likely to have healthy, happy, psychologically sound men, women, and children so clearly these conditions are not the only thing causing all the extra problems in the polygamous marriages.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Thank you for posting directly into this thread.

[This account no longer in use.]

The original question posed by Silent Cal was ...could her continued hardline stance on coal hurt her in Ohio and PA?, and I don't think there's any question that Hillary's anti-coal position will hurt her in the region. But perhaps I have a tiny Trump brain, I'm not sure...

I am.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The original question posed by Silent Cal was ...could her continued hardline stance on coal hurt her in Ohio and PA?, and I don't think there's any question that Hillary's anti-coal position will hurt her in the region. But perhaps I have a tiny Trump brain, I'm not sure...

I am.

The fact that you have to put every dumbass Lyndon quote in here makes me suspect that you are indeed obsessed with him like he claims.

[Badger]

The original question posed by Silent Cal was ...could her continued hardline stance on coal hurt her in Ohio and PA?, and I don't think there's any question that Hillary's anti-coal position will hurt her in the region. But perhaps I have a tiny Trump brain, I'm not sure...

I am.

Stop it. Now. I'm serious.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

it's not smith's fault that px constantly spouts absurdly hypocritical insults ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Landslide Lyndon]

it's not smith's fault that px constantly spouts absurdly hypocritical insults ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What do you care? Are you smith's puppet-master?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

it's not smith's fault that px constantly spouts absurdly hypocritical insults ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What do you care? Are you smith's puppet-master?

Thank you for proving her point.