food for thought...
and with that i'm hungry so it's lunch time.
Comments
-
Slate is your source??!!
-
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. -
"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. -
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle 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.
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.RaceBannon said:
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle 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.
Rinse lather repeat
No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news -
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.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.
Do you have ADD? -
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. -
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. -
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.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.
Do you have ADD? -
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.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.
Do you have ADD? -
You sound defensiveTheGlove said:
It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.RaceBannon said:
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle 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.
Rinse lather repeat
No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news -
the article you linked was a bumper stickerTheGlove said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.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.
Do you have ADD?
HTH -
/threadRaceBannon said:
the article you linked was a bumper stickerTheGlove said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.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.
Do you have ADD?
HTH
-
Looks like someone else didn't read the whole article or any of the other sources.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. -
Yeah, I guess I just dismiss Colbert outright because he is, after all, a fucking comedian.TheGlove said:
Looks like someone else didn't read the whole article or any of the other sources.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.
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. -
Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.RaceBannon said:
You sound defensiveTheGlove said:
It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.RaceBannon said:
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle 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.
Rinse lather repeat
No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news
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. -
"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. -
Obviously we aren't smart enough to understand these complex issues that oddly enough seemed to be presented with dismissive name calling.TheGlove said:
Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.RaceBannon said:
You sound defensiveTheGlove said:
It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.RaceBannon said:
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle 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.
Rinse lather repeat
No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news
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.
Why don't you dumb it down for us in your own words? -
fixerated.RaceBannon said:
I didn't like the article you linkedTheGlove said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.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.
Do you have ADD?was a bumper stickerbecause it made conservatives look bad.
HTH -
The article was written by a coog duck troll trying to make conservatives look bad?TheGlove said:
fixerated.RaceBannon said:
I didn't like the article you linkedTheGlove said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.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.
Do you have ADD?was a bumper stickerbecause it made conservatives look bad.
HTH -
yeah, c'mon Race.
Chase your tail. Jump.
Refute all that propaganda point by point. -
See above in bold.RaceBannon said:
Obviously we aren't smart enough to understand these complex issuesTheGlove said:
Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.RaceBannon said:
You sound defensiveTheGlove said:
It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.RaceBannon said:
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle 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.
Rinse lather repeat
No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news
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.
Thanks for admitting it. J/k, I'm sure you are smart enough, maybe smarter than I.
that oddly enough seemed to be presented with dismissive name calling.
huh?
Why don't you dumb it down for us in your own words?
No thanks. I read the linked articles and studies. You can do the same and come to your own conclusions. But please don't pretend you did before your initial comments in this thread. That would be disingenuous.
At the very least, this article has gotten me to think about what is behind people's political opinions. I don't take it as the gospel and I'm not offended by people who disagree. It was the knee-jerk reactions that raised my hackles. But what did I expect differently from the Tug Tavern? -
I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.
-
How many logical fallacies can the glove commit in one thread? The o/u is 5TheGlove said:
fixerated.RaceBannon said:
I didn't like the article you linkedTheGlove said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
If you can't see how hypocritical that paragraph is then I can't help you.TheGlove said:
It's tough when the article takes longer to read than you can actually focus on something.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.
Do you have ADD?was a bumper stickerbecause it made conservatives look bad.
HTH
He links an article and goes ape shit. Christ.
You doing exactly what the article says unthinking Fucktards do. .which is classic confirmation bias. You may have proven this right by your own example.
I can do it too.
PROVE THIS WRONG POINT BY POINT!
wnd.com/2010/03/127614/ -
Do you want a cookie?CuntWaffle said:I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.
-
Or owning a gunCuntWaffle said:I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.
-
Have you always pressed like this or did I just not really pay that close attention to you before?TheGlove said:
Do you want a cookie?CuntWaffle said:I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.
-
Christ.TheGlove said:
Do you want a cookie?CuntWaffle said:I saw a bumper sticker that said rock climbing is dangerous but didn't have anything to back up that claim. Rock climbing isn't as dangerous as say sharks or cancer.
-
People, as in all of us, left right or middle, is fine. To try to ascribe motivations to one side but not the other is not so fine.TheGlove said:
See above in bold.RaceBannon said:
Obviously we aren't smart enough to understand these complex issuesTheGlove said:
Not defensive. Sorry for the blunt, negative reply.RaceBannon said:
You sound defensiveTheGlove said:
It seems your reading comprehension still sucks.RaceBannon said:
Its an old story. Conservatives are simple minded, stupid, shallow while liberals are deep thinking intellectualsCuntWaffle 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.
Rinse lather repeat
No proof just some simpleton from Comedy Central. Which is where most deep thinking libs get their news
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.
Thanks for admitting it. J/k, I'm sure you are smart enough, maybe smarter than I.
that oddly enough seemed to be presented with dismissive name calling.
huh?
Why don't you dumb it down for us in your own words?
No thanks. I read the linked articles and studies. You can do the same and come to your own conclusions. But please don't pretend you did before your initial comments in this thread. That would be disingenuous.
At the very least, this article has gotten me to think about what is behind people's political opinions. I don't take it as the gospel and I'm not offended by people who disagree. It was the knee-jerk reactions that raised my hackles. But what did I expect differently from the Tug Tavern?
And of course I didn't read the article. Like you say, its the rub and a tug bored.
