A civil debate?

choomer said:

I took several days to become bored enough to care what you wrote.
I notice that's the ONLY thing you could come up with as a reply though instead of addressing me pointing out how your support of a 'peer reviewed" study you haven't read is just making you look more inept.

Click to expand...

It took you three more days to come up with this shit post?

choomer said:

I took several days to become bored enough to care what you wrote.
I notice that's the ONLY thing you could come up with as a reply though instead of addressing me pointing out how your support of a 'peer reviewed" study you haven't read is just making you look more inept.

Click to expand...

aggressively impotent

choomer said:

I took several days to become bored enough to care what you wrote.
I notice that's the ONLY thing you could come up with as a reply though instead of addressing me pointing out how your support of a 'peer reviewed" study you haven't read is just making you look more inept.

Click to expand...

You keep insisting that I haven't read something that you haven't read. You can't even prove that you read this thread. The funny thing is, you have to deny science in order to support your lord and savior Trump.

The fact is, it is a peer reviewed study, cited hundreds of times and read regularly because it remains in the scientific journal. You just can't get over it.

Have you considered suicide?

InigoMontoya said:

Hey everybody, I've been browsing through the politics section on here a little bit, and feel like the same thing is happening here that's happening everywhere else. Petty arguments using generalization that systematically turns us against one another.

Click to expand...

So true. Several months ago, I posted my own speculations about a post-cognitive America--a society where thinking is no longer necessary to survive. I was beat up all over this message board for attempting to develop an original idea. I was called every name in the book, and I was even ridiculed for spending my free time on a message board site by people who spend their free time on a message board site.

I'm afraid there's no hope for our society; it's truly rotten to the core. I think we deserve Trump, and on one of the news channels today, some talking head said we're in a political system that's been hijacked by popular culture. To me that's quite an apt description.

DiogenesTheWiser said:

So true. Several months ago, I posted my own speculations about a post-cognitive America--a society where thinking is no longer necessary to survive. I was beat up all over this message board

.

Click to expand...

A well deserved beating.

InigoMontoya said:

Hey everybody, I've been browsing through the politics section on here a little bit, and feel like the same thing is happening here that's happening everywhere else. Petty arguments using generalization that systematically turns us against one another. Let's just be cool about it

Click to expand...

No bro, it's quite simply that injustice, racism, misogyny, willful ignorance, criminal greed are not acceptable. They are not petty issues nor are they turning us against one another.

It isn't cool to give a pass to folks who fail to respect our elemental principles. Trump is a moral disaster of a human being. Supporting him, despite his ineptitude his and corrosive effects, because it benefits you or assuages your insecurities is fucked up. There are plenty of fucked up shitballs out here. It's cool to let them know.

InigoMontoya said:

Hey everybody, I've been browsing through the politics section on here a little bit, and feel like the same thing is happening here that's happening everywhere else. Petty arguments using generalization that systematically turns us against one another. Let's just be cool about it

Click to expand...

No bro, it's quite simply that injustice, racism, misogyny, willful ignorance, criminal greed are not acceptable. They are not petty issues nor are they turning us against one another.

It isn't cool to give a pass to folks who fail to respect our elemental principles. Trump is a moral disaster of a human being. Supporting him, despite his ineptitude and his corrosive effects, because it benefits you or assuages your insecurities is fucked up. There are plenty of fucked up shitballs out here. It's cool to let them know. Any and all uneducated experts, entitled sloths, blithely witless, ossified deities should be wary of a throat punch when gum flaping.



View attachment 4079509

abandonconflict said:

You keep insisting that I haven't read something that you haven't read. You can't even prove that you read this thread. The funny thing is, you have to deny science in order to support your lord and savior Trump.
The fact is, it is a peer reviewed study, cited hundreds of times and read regularly because it remains in the scientific journal. You just can't get over it.
Have you considered suicide?

Click to expand...

You admitted to not reading it as I did pages ago. Did you miss it when I said I wasn't going to pay for the paper and that it was definitely beyond your budget?
I don't deny hard science (when able to be replicated), or support Dumph.

I do, however, hold quite a bit of skepticism when it comes to paper about "soft" sciences like psychology. economics, political science, and other sociological sciences as they have tendency to 2.3-fold increased odds of positive results compared to the physical sciences (which has been scientifically proven).

Cars work because chemistry, electricity, and mathematics work 100% the time and don't rely on theory, where psychology (as opposed to psychiatry) relies on 51 different "schools" of thought to define itself as a "science".
Next time you get in your car to go somewhere be glad it depends on hard sciences that don't rely on consensus acceptance of 51 different schools of thought on how chemistry, electricity, and mathematics work.

So, in summary, a story that you read citing a paper that you've never read which reports positive results in a sociological investigation of polled data which suggests a trend is absolutely unquestionable to you?

That explains SO much.
It might also explain your preoccupation with suicide.

Keep digging!

DiogenesTheWiser said:

So true. Several months ago, I posted my own speculations about a post-cognitive America--a society where thinking is no longer necessary to survive. I was beat up all over this message board for attempting to develop an original idea. I was called every name in the book, and I was even ridiculed for spending my free time on a message board site by people who spend their free time on a message board site.
I'm afraid there's no hope for our society; it's truly rotten to the core. I think we deserve Trump, and on one of the news channels today, some talking head said we're in a political system that's been hijacked by popular culture. To me that's quite an apt description.

Click to expand...

Bummer dude.
Did you come to the conclusion your theory was proving correct as evidenced by the reception of your observation?
Don't let popularity and biased administration silence your voice as at least it seems you can write well without invective and derision, and while I may not share your views, I cannot learn why I might want to come to agree with them without your making those views known.

Heil Tweetler said:

A well deserved beating.

Click to expand...

Then he must have said something worth reading.
Are you jealous that posting more often does not equal being correct?

Heil Tweetler said:

View attachment 4079510
No bro, it's quite simply that injustice, racism, misogyny, willful ignorance, criminal greed are not acceptable. They are not petty issues nor are they turning us against one another.
It isn't cool to give a pass to folks who fail to respect our elemental principles. Trump is a moral disaster of a human being. Supporting him, despite his ineptitude his and corrosive effects, because it benefits you or assuages your insecurities is fucked up. There are plenty of fucked up shitballs out here. It's cool to let them know.View attachment 4079509

Click to expand...

We're you so afraid someone might miss your input that you had to post it twice?

Sorry, but posting self serving aggrandizement of your agenda and showing the inability to listen to anything that does not fit within your narrow understanding is not particularly flattering and posting it more than once does not help.

Choomer practices pseudo-science in that he first discards ideas that conflict with his world view and searches for bits of information that confirms his biases. Also to say that the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry don't rely on theory is false. They use theories and test them with the scientific method. Same goes with soft sciences such as psychology and sociology. These are all natural science based upon theories that are tested using the scientific method and they all use mathematics. Mathematics is not a natural science, it is an empirical-based logic and even mathematics relies on axioms which are not proven but obviously true.


Regarding science-based conclusion that liberals are smarter than conservatives, I submit a scientific study that confirms what is obvious to anybody capable of observing differences between a Trump rally and recent rallies in support of the ACA.

http://www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/social-psychology-quarterly/why-liberals-and-atheists-are-more-intelligent


A definition of liberalism from the article:

liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.

Observe and feel embarrassed, @choomer :




The article tests other hypotheses, such as Atheists are smarter (true), monogamous people are smarter (true). A conclusion from this and other studies is that "more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values, such as liberalism, atheism, and, for men, sexual exclusivity, than less intelligent individuals"

I'll advance one other observation, which is people with liberal voting tendencies outnumber those with conservative voting tendencies. Perhaps people with higher intelligence and liberal attitudes are more biologically successful. Intelligent people understand this whereas troglodyte conservatives simply can't get past their base emotions of gluttony and selfishness while they wither and die.

choomer said:

I took several days to become bored enough to care what you wrote.
I notice that's the ONLY thing you could come up with as a reply though instead of addressing me pointing out how your support of a 'peer reviewed" study you haven't read is just making you look more inept.

Click to expand...

Tell me, dumdum; which information holds more weight? Peer reviewed, published research or some drivel spewed by a retarded sock called Choomer?

DiogenesTheWiser said:

So true. Several months ago, I posted my own speculations about a post-cognitive America--a society where thinking is no longer necessary to survive. I was beat up all over this message board for attempting to develop an original idea. I was called every name in the book, and I was even ridiculed for spending my free time on a message board site by people who spend their free time on a message board site.

I'm afraid there's no hope for our society; it's truly rotten to the core. I think we deserve Trump, and on one of the news channels today, some talking head said we're in a political system that's been hijacked by popular culture. To me that's quite an apt description.

Click to expand...

LOL, you are still smarting over that but have only recently come out of from under the covers that you pulled over your head to sulk.

You posited a baseless theory and was soundly trounced because it was false.

Your theory was "I'm calling it the Post-Cognitive Age, ushered in by smart technology in which machines think for us. " What factioid do you use as proof? "more and more Americans identify with a politician who, like them, says that "thinking is bad" and that he "loves the poorly educated." Actually, Trump lost the popular vote in the US and today fewer people approve of him than the day he won via an arcane relic of the days when the US economy was in part based upon chattel slavery.

Your complaint that people use technology to find answers more quickly than ever before centers on the your conclusion that this means computers are doing the thinking for us. I submit that this might be true for you but anybody who works in technical fields knows that aquiring information is not the same as thinking. It takes more intelligence and education to succeed today, not less. The challenge we face today is not the "loss of cognitive function" but the need to put additional resources into raising the level of competence of the masses so that they too can succeed in an age where simple tasks including some intelligence-based ones are done by machines.

You felt abused because you were obviously wrong and called out for it.

A civil debate online? On RIU?

choomer said:

Bummer dude.
Did you come to the conclusion your theory was proving correct as evidenced by the reception of your observation?
Don't let popularity and biased administration silence your voice as at least it seems you can write well without invective and derision, and while I may not share your views, I cannot learn why I might want to come to agree with them without your making those views known.

Then he must have said something worth reading.
Are you jealous that posting more often does not equal being correct?

Click to expand...

pseudo-intellectual, not just pseudo science.

since1991 said:

A civil debate online? On RIU?

Click to expand...

Right? We have Trump and his supporters selling the country off and not even to the highest bidder, more like giving it away to people who already have more than they and theirs could ever manage to use. Meanwhile the 90% of this country who do 99% of the work are struggling and the lower economic groups have no chance at all. Our military is becoming more and more like the Roman occupation armies of old for the sole purpose of protecting the wealth of the 1%.

And what are we supposed to do? sit around the tea table engaging in civil discussion while holding fine china with a slightly bent pinky finger.

I'll just quote Tweetler who said it best.

Heil Tweetler said:

No bro, it's quite simply that injustice, racism, misogyny, willful ignorance, criminal greed are not acceptable. They are not petty issues nor are they turning us against one another.

There are plenty of fucked up shitballs out here. It's cool to let them know. Any and all uneducated experts, entitled sloths, blithely witless, ossified deities should be wary of a throat punch when gum flaping.

Click to expand...

InigoMontoya said:

Hey everybody, I've been browsing through the politics section on here a little bit, and feel like the same thing is happening here that's happening everywhere else. Petty arguments using generalization that systematically turns us against one another. The main point of this website is pretty self explanatory. If us stoners can't talk politics or sensitive social subjects without attacking others opinions and insulting each other than who on this earth can? I know I would probably clash politically over some issue with most members on here. But is anybody up to doing it in a civil manner? A real debate where we can share opinions and accept that we have different views without arguing and insulting each other?

George Washington warned about using a party system for the government. He said it would cause division amongst the people and turn us all against one another. And that's all it is now a days. Party affiliation means an automatic hate for someone based on a general platform. It's 'We the People' not 'We the Democrats/Republicans f**k those other guys'. That would be long and rude And we are ALL the people, we are all equal. So feel free to come and disagree with me on any number of things. Let's just be cool about it

Click to expand...

if you mean dropping the identity politics then i doubt it but I'm sure willing to try it out.

2t>4t said:

if you mean dropping the identity politics then i doubt it but I'm sure willing to try it out.

Click to expand...

Oh, OK

So no more evangelist Christian identity politics. I'm all for that.

Fogdog said:

Oh, OK

So no more evangelist Christian identity politics. I'm all for that.

Click to expand...

right? if I were one of those and we were discussing policy and you disagreed I would not feel as if you were attacking my group identity and therefore me on a personal level.

2t>4t said:

right? if I were one of those and we were discussing policy and you disagreed I would not feel as if you were attacking my group identity and therefore me on a personal level.

Click to expand...

You seem muddled about what identity politics are. Identity politics in the real sense of the term is simply people grouping together to achieve a common objective through political action. Labor, capitalists, Christians, etc. When the term is used by right wingers, they don't mean themselves, although one could argue that right wing middle aged whites clearly do vote as a group, as in the tea party. They mean minorities. They mean women voting in support of equal rights. They don't mean the huge block of comfortable white people who enjoy the status quo of white privilege and vote as a group.

You talk as though "identity politics are bad". That's conservative-speak. It's clearly the desire of the 1% to prevent people from voting as a block. Identity politics is simply how people who don't have a billion or so in the bank to buy a congressman make their voice heard.

Fogdog said:

You seem muddled about what identity politics are. Identity politics in the real sense of the term is simply people grouping together to achieve a common objective through political action. Labor, capitalists, Christians, etc. When the term is used by right wingers, they don't mean themselves, although one could argue that right wing middle aged whites clearly do vote as a group, as in the tea party. They mean minorities. They mean women voting in support of equal rights. They don't mean the huge block of comfortable white people who enjoy the status quo of white privilege and vote as a group.

You talk as though "identity politics are bad". That's conservative-speak. It's clearly the desire of the 1% to prevent people from voting as a block. Identity politics is simply how people who don't have a billion or so in the bank to buy a congressman make their voice heard.

Click to expand...

if I said hillary Clinton is a skeezing bitch, would you get all personally offended?

2t>4t said:

if I said hillary Clinton is a skeezing bitch, would you get all personally offended?

Click to expand...

who'd you vote for?