Active Users:103 Time:22/05/2018 06:50:37 PM
Well, I will certainly agree anyone with half a brain can see through Fox "News." Joel Send a noteboard - 05/02/2012 01:37:35 AM
I have seen some of the questions they were asking and it really wasn't hard to know what the right answer was so the fact that the less intelligent answered wrong isn’t surprising. I didn't look at much and sure had the fell of that silly little contrived study that was supposed to show Fox News viewers that anyone with half a brain could see through. You know the one where the questions were all weighted to be more likely for conservatives to answer wrong. Lots of "was Obama born in the US" but not many "is there any proof the Bush lied about Iraq".

They do have high ratings, but then, so do Jerry Springer and traffic accidents. :P I rather doubt the problem was the questions though; how to ask non-leading questions (to the extent that is possible; recall my other recent thread on eye witnesses... ;)) is pretty well known at this stage. If Gallup and Rasmussen can manage it, I imagine most PhDs can, too, and few researchers want to risk their professional reputation by the exposure of amateur methodology. Which incidentally goes for that tangential swipe at climatology, too. ;) Speaking of tangents...:

Proof Bush indisputably LIED and specifically about IRAQ is hard to find, but things like this:

force us to choose between incompetence or dishonesty. I watched him live when he responded to a question about bin Ladens location during a national press conference by saying he was "not too concerned about him." I watched him live again during a national presidential debate a few months later when Kerry called him on it and he responded, "I just don't think I ever said that; it's another one of those 'exaggerations.'" Not about Iraq, just the guy who blew up the WTC, and I literally jumped out of my chair when I heard Bush say that, because I knew it was BS: Do you honestly think I remembered what he said better than HE did? I cannot prove it a lie without crawling in Bushs head, but it is about as close to a lie as one can get, and implying KERRY lied about something Bush indisputably (but apparently not undeniably) said was pretty brazen.

Of course, the BIG question here is: Bush said on camera that he was unconcerned about the man responsible for 911, Kerry called him on it, and Bush denied saying it on camera. If the Democratic Party was really serious about defeating Bush and the Republican Party, and the two of them are not just engaged in smoke and mirrors to obscure what BOTH parties are doing to the country why did Kerry not air both clips in 24-7 in all 50 states and end the election right there? That makes "there you go again" and "my opponents youth and inexperience" look like nothing; it is like FDR saying he did not care about Pearl Harbor and the GOP not burying him with it in the very next election.

I can not help thinking of that scene from a Prisoner episode when Patrick McGoohan demands to know "whose side are you on?!" and Number Two says, "it doesn't matter; both sides are becoming the same...."

If there is any real scientist left in the social science field they really should object to political activist posing as scientist and publishing this sort of dribble. It isn't science it is simple read meat for the liberal base meant to reaffirm their deep belief that they are the smart ones.

What do you want to bet these same scientist would object to fact that IQ show males are smarter than females and whites are smarter than blacks, a lot smarter. Mention those things and you will likely hear a lot about the inaccuracy of the test and how he test is biased. The same test they use to show how much smarter they are will suddenly be invalid. Social science is a fascinating field that has been ruined by people looking to prove what they want to believe is true or what they want everyone to believe is true. Climate research has the same problem. Political activist have no place in science.

I doubt you would hear much about the inaccuracy of the test; you would probably hear a great deal about economic disparities causing educational disparities. You certainly SHOULD, and that remains the central issue; white males from similar economic backgrounds do just as badly, but there are no affirmative action programs to help them. Conversely, wealthy women and racial minorities do not need them, and score well on those same IQ tests for that very reason.

While uneducated voters disproportionately voting conservative does not mean conservatives are disproportionately uneducated, conservative politicians know who gets support from the uneducated, and from bigots. Consequently, attacking both educational opportunity in general and affirmative action in particular serves their own interests very well. Educated voters tend to vote left and uneducated ones tend to vote right, so it is obvious which one conservative politicians want to predominate. That they can both pander to bigots AND reduce education in general by attacking affirmative action is just icing on the cake. The best thing liberals could do for both their personal interests and their stated cause is to drop affirmative action completely and concentrate entirely on increased education for all those who cannot afford it, as well as improving the financial situation of those people so they can afford more education even without direct assistance with it. Of course, that assumes they are not playing both ends against the middle just as assiduously and effectively as conservatives are.

Might as well argue with the ground about how much longer winter will last. At least he isn’t pushing a political agenda.

Honestly, I wish they were all pushing a political agenda; that can be debated on its merits. Most are pushing personal agendas masquerading as political ones.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism - 03/02/2012 08:58:00 PM 980 Views
I think ... - 03/02/2012 09:28:02 PM 535 Views
I agree. - 03/02/2012 10:48:25 PM 1273 Views
Yeah, I am unsure whether to be impressed or disappointed. - 05/02/2012 02:38:05 AM 1413 Views
That is a logical and reasonable assessment. - 04/02/2012 08:59:59 PM 1321 Views
You think very well. - 05/02/2012 04:12:11 AM 1270 Views
note: "social conservatives", not "fiscal conservatives" - 03/02/2012 09:37:18 PM 1323 Views
I've wondered: - 03/02/2012 09:55:14 PM 1331 Views
It bothers the living fuck out of me - 03/02/2012 10:59:01 PM 1292 Views
Just wait ten years - 03/02/2012 11:21:25 PM 1169 Views
Oh, I still vote Republican. - 04/02/2012 01:49:43 AM 1216 Views
Re: Oh, I still vote Republican. - 04/02/2012 01:15:10 PM 1251 Views
Re: Just wait ten years - 04/02/2012 05:16:16 AM 1231 Views
By referencing it… - 03/02/2012 10:50:59 PM 1220 Views
That's an odd idea. - 03/02/2012 11:10:31 PM 1280 Views
It was a mostly facetious comment…. - 03/02/2012 11:49:28 PM 642 Views
Clearly you endorse it. - 05/02/2012 02:23:41 AM 317 Views
Only endorsing its validity, not its soundness. *NM* - 04/02/2012 02:24:24 AM 246 Views
Tempting... - 03/02/2012 11:17:43 PM 513 Views
I expected no less. - 05/02/2012 12:25:14 AM 548 Views
Still fun though - 05/02/2012 01:30:26 AM 553 Views
Well, that is the main thing. - 05/02/2012 02:25:36 AM 534 Views
Well, racists are dumb. What's to discuss? - 04/02/2012 01:23:27 AM 380 Views
I think that generally agreed, though we need a study PROVING what we already know. - 05/02/2012 12:41:26 AM 614 Views
Proving is something you do in maths, not science. - 05/02/2012 09:05:30 AM 344 Views
So the Moon might still be made of green cheese? - 05/02/2012 10:20:57 AM 423 Views
Yes. It is not very likely, though, since no measurement we have done so far indicates that it is so - 05/02/2012 02:28:18 PM 287 Views
Oh, let us not go THERE. - 05/02/2012 02:54:30 PM 536 Views
Bad comparison - 05/02/2012 03:36:12 PM 393 Views
Well, that last part will make sure this gets ugly.... - 04/02/2012 02:05:11 AM 273 Views
Do you not think it's true then? - 04/02/2012 07:32:13 AM 531 Views
Same here *NM* - 04/02/2012 12:13:44 PM 161 Views
Not in my experience. - 04/02/2012 04:17:01 PM 468 Views
Granted, you do move in different circles than I (or Jens, for that matter.) - 04/02/2012 10:24:52 PM 417 Views
Corfirmational bias much? - 04/02/2012 04:25:24 PM 406 Views
I did mention that I didn't care enough to look into it. - 04/02/2012 10:22:09 PM 420 Views
As a few others have noted, it is important to preserve the causality chain. - 05/02/2012 02:35:02 AM 386 Views
I dont see that it matters. - 13/02/2012 01:40:45 AM 425 Views
this sort of "science" is so easily and often slanted it doesn't really merit arguement - 04/02/2012 04:23:14 AM 474 Views
Groundhog 2012! - 04/02/2012 05:15:31 AM 408 Views
screw the groundhog, we have been in the high 60's all week - 04/02/2012 09:28:38 PM 290 Views
Well, I will certainly agree anyone with half a brain can see through Fox "News." - 05/02/2012 01:37:35 AM 558 Views

Reply to Message