food for thought...

BennyBeaver

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/truthiness_research_cognitive_biases_for_simple_clear_conservative_messages.single.html

and with that i'm hungry so it's lunch time.

RaceBannon

Slate is your source??!!

CuntWaffle

The chick that wrote this is probably one of those "ban or cap corporate profits" cunts who goes to Starbucks daily and buys every new model of iPhone when they come out.

CuntWaffle

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

RaceBannon

CuntWaffle said:

The chick that wrote this is probably one of those "ban or cap corporate profits" cunts who goes to Starbucks daily and buys every new model of iPhone when they come out.

Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectuals

Rinse lather repeat

No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news

RaceBannon

BennyBeaver

RaceBannon said:

CuntWaffle said:

The chick that wrote this is probably one of those "ban or cap corporate profits" cunts who goes to Starbucks daily and buys every new model of iPhone when they come out.

Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectuals

Rinse lather repeat

No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news

It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.

BennyBeaver

CuntWaffle said:

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

BennyBeaver

CuntWaffle said:

The chick that wrote this is probably one of those "ban or cap corporate profits" cunts who goes to Starbucks daily and buys every new model of iPhone when they come out.

haie

Eryn Newman is a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive psychology at the University of California, Irvine.

Yeah, this bitch is not a real scientist, but it's a great story for libs.

CuntWaffle

TheGlove said:

CuntWaffle said:

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

BennyBeaver

CuntWaffle said:

TheGlove said:

CuntWaffle said:

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

I don't really need your help, thanks. But this might help you out, the bumper-sticker analogy is threaded throughout the article as an illustration of the main point. In other words, her opinion about mopeds, cars, guns, or cigarettes (was it the mention of "dangerous guns" that threw you into a tailspin?) doesn't make a bit of difference.

RaceBannon

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

CuntWaffle said:

The chick that wrote this is probably one of those "ban or cap corporate profits" cunts who goes to Starbucks daily and buys every new model of iPhone when they come out.

Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectuals

Rinse lather repeat

No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news

It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.

You sound defensive

RaceBannon

TheGlove said:

CuntWaffle said:

TheGlove said:

CuntWaffle said:

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

I don't really need your help, thanks. But this might help you out, the bumper-sticker analogy is threaded throughout the article as an illustration of the main point. In other words, her opinion about mopeds, cars, guns, or cigarettes (was it the mention of "dangerous guns" that threw you into a tailspin?) doesn't make a bit of difference.

the article you linked was a bumper sticker

HTH

CuntWaffle

RaceBannon said:

TheGlove said:

CuntWaffle said:

TheGlove said:

CuntWaffle said:

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

I don't really need your help, thanks. But this might help you out, the bumper-sticker analogy is threaded throughout the article as an illustration of the main point. In other words, her opinion about mopeds, cars, guns, or cigarettes (was it the mention of "dangerous guns" that threw you into a tailspin?) doesn't make a bit of difference.

the article you linked was a bumper sticker

HTH

/thread

BennyBeaver

haie said:

Eryn Newman is a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive psychology at the University of California, Irvine.

Yeah, this bitch is not a real scientist, but it's a great story for libs.

Looks like someone else didn't read the whole article or any of the other sources.

haie

TheGlove said:

haie said:

Eryn Newman is a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive psychology at the University of California, Irvine.

Yeah, this bitch is not a real scientist, but it's a great story for libs.

Looks like someone else didn't read the whole article or any of the other sources.

Yeah, I guess I just dismiss Colbert outright because he is, after all, a fucking comedian.

The rest of those clowns just champion shit like social semiotics because it keeps them employed. They have no real basis other than "studies" where you're supposed to assume they went into it with no bias or thesis in mind.

hth, and fuck off.

BennyBeaver

RaceBannon said:

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

CuntWaffle said:

The chick that wrote this is probably one of those "ban or cap corporate profits" cunts who goes to Starbucks daily and buys every new model of iPhone when they come out.

Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectuals

Rinse lather repeat

No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news

It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.

You sound defensive

Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.

You either didn't read the article and the sources OR you are unable to understand OR you're lazy OR you don't give a fuck.

But since you responded, it seems you give a fuck. So why can't you come up with something else in response than dismissive, name-calling? Laziness? Lack of understanding?

There's tons of proof cited.

Rinse lather repeat that, mister.

haie

"proof"

Have you ever worked for any of these shitbags? Have you ever helped them collect their "data" or formulate their bullshit "theories"? Let me educate you as someone who has...














They want more research funding, and will feed libs whatever slop gets them that.

RaceBannon

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

CuntWaffle said:

The chick that wrote this is probably one of those "ban or cap corporate profits" cunts who goes to Starbucks daily and buys every new model of iPhone when they come out.

Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectuals

Rinse lather repeat

No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news

It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.

You sound defensive

Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.

You either didn't read the article and the sources OR you are unable to understand OR you're lazy OR you don't give a fuck.

But since you responded, it seems you give a fuck. So why can't you come up with something else in response than dismissive, name-calling? Laziness? Lack of understanding?

There's tons of proof cited.

Rinse lather repeat that, mister.

Obviously we aren't smart enough to understand these complex issues that oddly enough seemed to be presented with dismissive name calling.

Why don't you dumb it down for us in your own words?

BennyBeaver

RaceBannon said:

TheGlove said:

CuntWaffle said:

TheGlove said:

CuntWaffle said:

"Are mopeds dangerous? Sure, if by dangerous you mean significantly riskier than cars but slightly less direful than motorcycles. They are not dangerous compared to smoking a lot of cigarettes or owning a gun. The point is that, while nothing about the bumper sticker backed up its ominous claim, I automatically accepted it."

Stopped reading after that.

It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.

Do you have ADD?

If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.

I don't really need your help, thanks. But this might help you out, the bumper-sticker analogy is threaded throughout the article as an illustration of the main point. In other words, her opinion about mopeds, cars, guns, or cigarettes (was it the mention of "dangerous guns" that threw you into a tailspin?) doesn't make a bit of difference.

I didn't like the article you linked was a bumper sticker because it made conservatives look bad.

HTH

fixerated.