At Yale, we conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals

Did that experiment involve removing the rational part of the conservative's brain? Because that would probably do the trick.

 

Why doesn't anyone ever read the cited articles?

"Criteria for inclusion in the NICS include that an individual is disabled based on a finding that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the mental disorders listings. These listings consist of medical conditions that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, regardless of age, education, or work experience. Individuals whose impairments meet a listing are the most severely disabled individuals we serve. If we find an individual to be disabled based on a listing-level mental impairment, and he or she satisfies all of the remaining requirements, we are required to report them to the NICS. If we do not find an individual to be disabled based on a mental impairment, he or she has not met the reporting requirements and we will not report them to the NICS."

Not nearly as "broad" as you have suggested. In fact, it's pretty damn specific in nature.

 

This supposed to be like gay conversion therapy? I thought this was agreed to be illegal? Or was it legal...

 

And thanks for the lesson in conspiracy thinking

 

Ok Bowerbird, friend, I'm going to write a very simple SAT style question for you.

And since you've touted your intelligence so very publicly in this thread you're surely not going to just ignore this post and hope nobody notices.

Here's your reading assignment:

In the year 2016 the State of Massachusetts had 89 firearm related homicides and 140 firearm related suicides with a total firearm related death rate of 3.4 deaths per 100,000 people. In that same year the State of Alaska had 45 firearm related homicides and 113 firearm related suicides with a total firearm related death rate of 23.0 deaths per 100,000 people. In the same year the State Massachusetts had a population of 6.859 million persons while the State of Alaska had a population of 0.739 million persons. By criteria of purchase options, purchase process, rights of carry, rights of transport, and rights of ownership the State of Massachusetts is considered to have more strict laws regarding firearms while the State of Alaska is considered to have less strict laws by comparison under of the same criteria.

Now here are your questions, select the statement from each that is true.

Question 1
a. The State of Massachusetts had fewer firearm related deaths than the State of Alaska.
b. The State of Alaska had fewer firearm related deaths than the state of Massachusetts.
c. Neither statements are true.

Question 2
a. The State of Massachusetts had fewer firearm related deaths as the result of crime than the State of Alaska.
b. The State of Alaska had fewer firearm related deaths as the result of crime than the state of Massachusetts.
c. Neither statements are true.

Question 3
a. The State of Massachusetts had a firearm related death rate which was than the firearm related death rate of the State of Alaska.
b. The State of Alaska had a firearm related death rate which was than the firearm related death rate of the State of Massachusetts.
c. Neither statements are true.

Question 4
a. If total number of firearm related deaths is assumed to be the only barometer for an exponent argument of gun laws then the platform of the State of Massachusetts would be favored.
b. If total number of firearm related deaths is assumed to be the only barometer for an exponent argument of gun laws then the platform of the State of Alaska would be favored.
c. Neither statements are true.

Question 5
a. If a rate of firearm related deaths is assumed to be the only barometer for an exponent argument of gun laws then the platform of the State of Massachusetts would be favored.
b. If a rate of firearm related deaths is assumed to be the only barometer for an exponent argument of gun laws then the platform of the State of Alaska would be favored.
c. Neither statements are true.

Question 6
a. The State of Massachusetts had fewer firearm related deaths than the State of Alaska because it had a lower firearm related death rate.
b. The State of Alaska had fewer firearm related deaths than the State of Massachusetts because it had a lower firearm related death rate.
c. Neither statements are true.

Question 7
a. An argument that State of Massachusetts is more violent than the State of Alaska because it had more firearm related deaths is a subjective argument.
b. An argument that State of Massachusetts is more violent than the State of Alaska because it had more firearm related deaths is an objective argument.
c. An argument that State of Massachusetts is more violent than the State of Alaska because it had more firearm related deaths is a relative argument.

Question 8
a. An argument that State of Alaska is more violent than the State of Massachusetts because it had a higher rate of firearm related deaths is a subjective argument.
b. An argument that State of Alaska is more violent than the State of Massachusetts because it had a higher rate of firearm related deaths is a objective argument.
c. An argument that State of Alaska is more violent than the State of Massachusetts because it had a higher rate of firearm related deaths is a relative argument.

 

Strawman

Beginning to end it is a strawman But by all means post your "reasoning"

 

Heh, ok so which is it...

Can you not answer them because you honestly don't know, or are you afraid to do so because you see that the correct answers build up to the realization that I was right all along?

Judging by your misapplication of "strawman" I do believe I have my answer.

And this is why I originally typed this out...

"Many leftist walk around boasting about how "intelligent" they are despite not being so, how "informed" they are despite not being so, and how "educated" they are despite not being so."

...which wasn't originally directed at you btw, but that you then chose to demonstrate with a controverted statement about per-capita and then re-demonstrated by refusing to answer some basic questions about per-capita.

:\

One cannot talk down to another without the ability to first rise above.

 

So, Donald 'John' Trump, and the current flock of brown-nosed peckerwood GOP lawmakers are all fakes?

 

It's called prison.

 

Why was I a solid Democrat for my adult life until I was around 42?

Easy, I loathed. I did not fear the rich, I loathed the rich. I did not fear poverty, I had lived in poverty. So abject to heat a can of food one day as a child, I dug a hole in the ground, got some wood, set it on fire, and put the opened can of pork and beans on the fire to warm it up so the siblings and i could have a bite of food. I met the cops at the door one day to explain we were fine that my parents only went shopping but we children were okay. Then the cops believed kids. Finally we got some food. Mom had a wood burning stove. We later moved to Oakland and there she had a wood burning stove and it was there I chopped wood for her stove. I accidently in the 4th grade managed to chop the end of the toe on my left foot. To this day, that toe is no longer than it's next toe while on my right foot, that is normal. Mom managed to get a neighbor to call for an ambulance and the doctors tried to save the toe. it did not manage to heal.

I was schooled as a child to be a Democrat. When you are poor, you think like one. It is like you are in hell and can't see a way out. So you get angry at those making it. Why do you think so many poor steal from people? They are very very angry Democrats.

 

Reflective of the objective. Propaganda and brainwashing. And it's made public.

Who among the peers would want to admit they don't follow the required ideological directive? To be liberal is to be smart and fearless. Don't agree to fall into that category?

This type of crap is what is making college degrees far less important to future employers.

 

It's nothing new for the Republicans. Remember Willie Horton?

Republicans are a fearful bunch. That's why...

• They need to carry guns to protect themselves from Bad Guys
• They need to have AR15's to protect themselves from the Government
• They want to ban Mexican Rapists
• They need to ban Muslim Muslims
• They believe homosexuals will turn their kids into Queers

 

Yeah the left have become unhinged hate mongers who believe their way is the only one to the point they are trying to silence the voices of conservatives, in other words destroy the first amendment altogether. Socialism is what they're pushing and what they've been duped into believing.

 

In 2008 Barack Obama cynically howled "Hope and Change!" knowing how legions of mindless worshipers would respond. There were resulting Obamagasms everywhere as tingles shot up and down leftist legs. 'Nuff said. But thank you for playing.

 

Obama's audacity of hope has been replaced by Trump's audacity of grope.

 

Naw.

What is truly funny is how the lefties are so scared about life, they can't recognize what these "studies" are actually designed to do.

Taping into the fear of everything that permeates liberal thinking, they compel the target audience to fall in line with required thinking, or be labeled fearful and unintelligent.

And it's amazing how easily they fall for it.

 

This is pseudoscience at its best - correlation does not imply causation.

 

Exactly. In fact, it's actually worse. It's another bit of propaganda designed to manipulate and persuade by applying fear of being placed on the wrong side of the required ideological line.

 

I don't know what the significance of this study is. I do know that Yale is one of our great universities and their studies should not be taken lightly. My guess is that you are one of the ignorant Trump base people who debunk anything that they don't know about or disagree with and who probably has never spent time in any college except to walk across the campus to get to the local hangout where you discuss the brilliance of Trump.

 

Yes. The belief that one's personality would constitute one's political affiliation is crypto-freudian nonsense that there is no proof of whatsoever. It could be true that one's childhood has effects on one's political beliefs and it could also be that - if you are an apolitical individual (which most are) - the foucauldian idea of "structural hegemony" will have an effect on your political belief - if you are not interested in politics, you will most likely be Liberal because that is what one "has to be" if they wish to be "good".

If you are genuinely interested in politics and political theory, you will spend a lot of time reading about it and from that form your political belief. You can thus be the most paranoid person on Earth and still be a Liberal.

However, I would actually argue that - if one really wishes to claim there is a correlation between personality and political affiliation - Liberals are more prone to paranoia and fear of change than Conservatives because Liberals want a big government to microplan everything. They fear chaos, in other words.

Of course, I would like to add as critique to this study that it is very simple-minded to see the political spectrum as "Democrat = Liberal" and "Republican = Conservative". Things are far more compkex than that and seeing the world from that kind of lens is academically ignorant.

 

You nailed it in the part I bolded in your post above.

That is the twist in all these "studies", and there have been many. One was published a number of years ago that made the rounds in all the liberal websites. It covered the same twisted logic.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

Of course, buried at the very end of this "research" was the following statement:

"Finally, it is also important that subsequent research reflect a wide range of political ideologies and broadly representative samples so that it does not merely address the ideological life of college students.

On one hand, political ideology probably has greater consistency and meaning for college-educated respondents; on the other, the ideological contents of political conservatism (and its opposites) may be different in a predominantly liberal environment such as a college campus compared with other contexts. Such locations may prove useful in future studies of social and cognitive motives associated with political liberalism, which we would also encourage. Although we have made a special effort to include nonstudent samples in our review, two thirds of the studies we reviewed were conducted with university students."

​

Consider this disclaimer and the impact it confesses to, in terms of the veracity of the "findings" these four Professors presented, and a multitude of liberal media outlets promoted.

​

 

Yes, I understand you have been told to believe that. That is why they created "studies" like the one in the OP.

"Identify with us, or be known as a fearful outcast".

Why else would so many studies of this type be made?

 

Was Trump in office when the study was undertaken?

 

There are a lot of this kind of study? First I hear of it and I don't necessarily buy into it, but this was not my point.

 

Article was published in 2017, was it not?