"You're implying that the military would openly and happily kill off even a quarter of it's [sic] citizens--"
Fucking am I?
It's almost as if you're debating an entirely different person and accidentally commenting here because you repeatedly take primary issue with things I'm not saying. It's as if you're not wrapping your head around how much of a non-issue I see this ultimately being. I'm sorry it parades in the face of your conservative wet dream wherein rednecks propose a serious challenge to a US military hardly even having to try.
Kill a quarter of its citizens? Hold on. Let me go laugh for five minutes and catch my breath.
Okay. Back. I was thinking more like less than ten as the most likely scenario and an absolute maximum of 100.
Anyway, here's the sauce on those studies I "lied" about and you totes roasted me on, should anyone else want to see and roast me too. I encourage them to. How else will I learn? See everyone, I had claimed that the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health found that lower childhood IQ correlated with being conservative later in life.
As you can see in this article titled "Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives" and captioned "liberals think they are smarter because they are", and as you can see from the graph plotting the actual data which clearly shows just what I claimed, I lied. Turns out, none of this even suggests conservatives might be dimmer after all. I misunderstood.
It required a keen mind like ItDuz here to inform me that none of it actually suggests what I claimed it does at all. It was pretty embarrassing for me. I guess I was just confused by the fact that it drills in exactly what I said and does so incontrovertibly, over and over and over and over and over and over and without leaving any doubt. I suppose the fact that I was 100% right clouded my mind and made me think I was right. Boy, he ROASTED me on this. Let me tell you. It's very apparent that I'm wrong. He's DEFINITELY not staring the white wall down, calling it black, and actually demonstrating the unthinkable level of denial necessary to actually argue here. No ma'am. No sir. Like he says, he's happy to be proven wrong. It definitely didn't unquestionably happen here.
It's actually amazing to me in its own way. Almost everyone else just argues about _why_ the results are what they are. It's not a bad road to go down. The more crazy people (think flat-Earthers and moon landing-deniers) just claim the studies are fake. Even _they_ ended up outranking you in terms of connection to reality. Think about this. You are so far the only human being I have ever encountered who actually just says it doesn't say what it clearly says. The stubbornness is off the charts, through the stratosphere. I don't even think Donald Trump would do that. Even he knows you can't point at a white wall and just say it's black.
Working hypothesis: Your brain and reality are at odds.
Awwwwwww, man. You know what, yeah you got me. Game over. I have been bested. I can't be fucked. 2nd amendment rights being taken from citizens and only ten will have an issue with it.
I'm going to blast through this because I can't be bothered talking to you at the best of times but I certainly can't be fucked talking to you about a topic I already talked to you on, and why will be explained in the process.
False, you claimed that conservatives are less intelligent than Liberals, you did not exclusively aim that towards children. A lie already.
You cited an opinion piece that refers to the conclusion of a study but originally you paired it with the actual studies the opinion piece was based on which is glaringly different from what you're doing now in only using the opinion piece and we both know the studies to that opinion piece does not conclude with what you're using this (((OPINION PIECE))) for, which is why you didn't use it initially like last time.
The rest is you just spending more time telling me I'm wrong than actually demonstrating it. I can't be bothered, Microsoft Paint graphs be damned. I'm not going on and on with you again only for you to be bitched on like the 50 year old study point as of late or even this topic of discussion we had originally just for you to drop it in hopes of compensating in another irrelevant topic and then coming back like, "Yo, you're dumb, you never proved me wrong!" when we both know how it ended. You're throwing shit at my shiny white wall and nothing is sticking but will come back later with different shit to throw, like with this, and I can't stress it enough (((OPINION PIECE))) and not the actual study I bitched you on because you know that the average Joe will look at that graph and just assume it's content to be legit but even I know you're not dumb enough to think a topic can be legitimately reviewed based on a graph you can make within 2 minutes on Microsoft Paint.
I don't like talking to you, you're incredibly bad faith, and you will outright lie almost as if your whole point is to waste time.
Amazing. Okay. Let me break this all down for you.
I'm not saying that only ten would have a problem. I'm saying that's my estimated casualty count before the insurgency effectively died all the same. You're perpetually missing my position that this would be akin to a grown ass man giving his toddler a slap on the wrist and putting him in the corner. What the toddler will "allow" his father to get away with doesn't enter the equation because the toddler doesn't have the capability to warrant such authority. The father also isn't going to have to break out some high-end UFC, real life ninja shit on the toddler. Things are going to go as the father wants and the toddler is going to be fine. I know; it's an absolutely disgusting thought to a redneck's wet dream of being an action star.
As for the Second Amendment, I believe we have had a genuine misunderstanding here. I'm actually talking about a scenario in which the law has been revised and those fighting back are breaking the law. That said, that's not super important because I honestly don't think it would look that much different if the government did this in a brute force manner either unless it was apparent they were going to follow this up with something absolutely heinous like concentration camps. So we can just continue as if I'd asserted as you thought. That's fine.
As for the children, would you like to double down on that? Turns out I actually told you multiple times that was the beauty of the particular study. Another well-known and undisputed fact is that liberals attain a higher level of education on average. Regarding samples demonstrating that adult liberals had higher IQs, conservatives often countered with claims that the greater academic education merely gave liberals the illusion of being more outright intelligent. This was despite the fact that the tests weren't based on preexisting knowledge but deductive abilities and spatial awareness.
I specifically told you that the beauty herein resided in the fact that they tested the IQs of children with minimal education and political exposure only to check back in as adults and learn that not only did those with lower IQs more often end up conservative, there was a correlation between how low their IQs were and how strongly conservative they were.
The graph itself is from the actual study and merely plots the data. It's a very mechanical, objective thing with zero room for opinion. Likewise, the results it shows are not a matter of opinion. It's mathematical, as objective as it gets. Your best bet is to claim fake news. You can't argue the purported numbers aren't as they're purported without divorcing reality.
Before I conclude, let me just comment on how funny that desperate straw-grab would be anyway, as if the more intelligent kids all magically suffered head injuries that reduced their IQs before becoming adult liberals. That got an IRL LOL out of me, so thanks for that.
"--we both know how it ended."
Hey! See, sometimes we do agree.
Of course you don't like talking to me. I've no doubt that you _thoroughly_ regret the very first exchange because you don't enjoy debate and learning new things. You only care about being right and you loathe the fact that I take the time to prove you wrong rather than you adjusting accordingly with newfound knowledge.
I knew the atlanta shooter was white before the news
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"You're implying that the military would openly and happily kill off even a quarter of it's [sic] citizens--"
Fucking am I?
It's almost as if you're debating an entirely different person and accidentally commenting here because you repeatedly take primary issue with things I'm not saying. It's as if you're not wrapping your head around how much of a non-issue I see this ultimately being. I'm sorry it parades in the face of your conservative wet dream wherein rednecks propose a serious challenge to a US military hardly even having to try.
Kill a quarter of its citizens? Hold on. Let me go laugh for five minutes and catch my breath.
Okay. Back. I was thinking more like less than ten as the most likely scenario and an absolute maximum of 100.
Anyway, here's the sauce on those studies I "lied" about and you totes roasted me on, should anyone else want to see and roast me too. I encourage them to. How else will I learn? See everyone, I had claimed that the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health found that lower childhood IQ correlated with being conservative later in life.
As you can see in this article titled "Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives" and captioned "liberals think they are smarter because they are", and as you can see from the graph plotting the actual data which clearly shows just what I claimed, I lied. Turns out, none of this even suggests conservatives might be dimmer after all. I misunderstood.
It required a keen mind like ItDuz here to inform me that none of it actually suggests what I claimed it does at all. It was pretty embarrassing for me. I guess I was just confused by the fact that it drills in exactly what I said and does so incontrovertibly, over and over and over and over and over and over and without leaving any doubt. I suppose the fact that I was 100% right clouded my mind and made me think I was right. Boy, he ROASTED me on this. Let me tell you. It's very apparent that I'm wrong. He's DEFINITELY not staring the white wall down, calling it black, and actually demonstrating the unthinkable level of denial necessary to actually argue here. No ma'am. No sir. Like he says, he's happy to be proven wrong. It definitely didn't unquestionably happen here.
It's actually amazing to me in its own way. Almost everyone else just argues about _why_ the results are what they are. It's not a bad road to go down. The more crazy people (think flat-Earthers and moon landing-deniers) just claim the studies are fake. Even _they_ ended up outranking you in terms of connection to reality. Think about this. You are so far the only human being I have ever encountered who actually just says it doesn't say what it clearly says. The stubbornness is off the charts, through the stratosphere. I don't even think Donald Trump would do that. Even he knows you can't point at a white wall and just say it's black.
Working hypothesis: Your brain and reality are at odds.
An article discussing the findings:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives?amp
The TLDR version, the graph itself, for people capable of accepting what their eyes are informing their brain of:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u15/Political%20ideology.jpg
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Awwwwwww, man. You know what, yeah you got me. Game over. I have been bested. I can't be fucked. 2nd amendment rights being taken from citizens and only ten will have an issue with it.
I'm going to blast through this because I can't be bothered talking to you at the best of times but I certainly can't be fucked talking to you about a topic I already talked to you on, and why will be explained in the process.
False, you claimed that conservatives are less intelligent than Liberals, you did not exclusively aim that towards children. A lie already.
You cited an opinion piece that refers to the conclusion of a study but originally you paired it with the actual studies the opinion piece was based on which is glaringly different from what you're doing now in only using the opinion piece and we both know the studies to that opinion piece does not conclude with what you're using this (((OPINION PIECE))) for, which is why you didn't use it initially like last time.
The rest is you just spending more time telling me I'm wrong than actually demonstrating it. I can't be bothered, Microsoft Paint graphs be damned. I'm not going on and on with you again only for you to be bitched on like the 50 year old study point as of late or even this topic of discussion we had originally just for you to drop it in hopes of compensating in another irrelevant topic and then coming back like, "Yo, you're dumb, you never proved me wrong!" when we both know how it ended. You're throwing shit at my shiny white wall and nothing is sticking but will come back later with different shit to throw, like with this, and I can't stress it enough (((OPINION PIECE))) and not the actual study I bitched you on because you know that the average Joe will look at that graph and just assume it's content to be legit but even I know you're not dumb enough to think a topic can be legitimately reviewed based on a graph you can make within 2 minutes on Microsoft Paint.
I don't like talking to you, you're incredibly bad faith, and you will outright lie almost as if your whole point is to waste time.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Amazing. Okay. Let me break this all down for you.
I'm not saying that only ten would have a problem. I'm saying that's my estimated casualty count before the insurgency effectively died all the same. You're perpetually missing my position that this would be akin to a grown ass man giving his toddler a slap on the wrist and putting him in the corner. What the toddler will "allow" his father to get away with doesn't enter the equation because the toddler doesn't have the capability to warrant such authority. The father also isn't going to have to break out some high-end UFC, real life ninja shit on the toddler. Things are going to go as the father wants and the toddler is going to be fine. I know; it's an absolutely disgusting thought to a redneck's wet dream of being an action star.
As for the Second Amendment, I believe we have had a genuine misunderstanding here. I'm actually talking about a scenario in which the law has been revised and those fighting back are breaking the law. That said, that's not super important because I honestly don't think it would look that much different if the government did this in a brute force manner either unless it was apparent they were going to follow this up with something absolutely heinous like concentration camps. So we can just continue as if I'd asserted as you thought. That's fine.
As for the children, would you like to double down on that? Turns out I actually told you multiple times that was the beauty of the particular study. Another well-known and undisputed fact is that liberals attain a higher level of education on average. Regarding samples demonstrating that adult liberals had higher IQs, conservatives often countered with claims that the greater academic education merely gave liberals the illusion of being more outright intelligent. This was despite the fact that the tests weren't based on preexisting knowledge but deductive abilities and spatial awareness.
I specifically told you that the beauty herein resided in the fact that they tested the IQs of children with minimal education and political exposure only to check back in as adults and learn that not only did those with lower IQs more often end up conservative, there was a correlation between how low their IQs were and how strongly conservative they were.
The graph itself is from the actual study and merely plots the data. It's a very mechanical, objective thing with zero room for opinion. Likewise, the results it shows are not a matter of opinion. It's mathematical, as objective as it gets. Your best bet is to claim fake news. You can't argue the purported numbers aren't as they're purported without divorcing reality.
Before I conclude, let me just comment on how funny that desperate straw-grab would be anyway, as if the more intelligent kids all magically suffered head injuries that reduced their IQs before becoming adult liberals. That got an IRL LOL out of me, so thanks for that.
"--we both know how it ended."
Hey! See, sometimes we do agree.
Of course you don't like talking to me. I've no doubt that you _thoroughly_ regret the very first exchange because you don't enjoy debate and learning new things. You only care about being right and you loathe the fact that I take the time to prove you wrong rather than you adjusting accordingly with newfound knowledge.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And that's certainly all fantastic. Good talk.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm glad you finally understand. Good talk indeed.