Jade Helm Conspiracy Non-TerroristsFollow

So when you said you didn't read or listen to Haidt, you were lying? Or did you absorb through osmosis? Have you read or listen to The Righteous Mind yet? The exact same science that concluded that conservatives are so against change that they'd lie, cheat, and manipulate data just to avoid it you mean? Oh, we're doing this again? A rambling hypothetical that is only vaguely related to the topic but ultimately proves to be irrelevant when it's crushed under the weight of even the slightest bit of scrutiny? Okay, let's examine it: Same scenario, we both observed something fall, but I read Newton directly while you read someone else who wrote something about a narrow portion of Newton's theories and are now assuming, nay, insisting that narrow sliver of a data point represents the entire theory, and have come to the conclusion that while gravity exists, it isn't constant because all the apples didn't fall at the exact same time. So we both agree you're bat-shit crazy. That's progress.

But the book is 530 pages, and the audiobook is seven and a half hours long! Ain't nobody got time for that! Can't you just pick one sentence and base your entire life view on it instead?

Edited, Sep 3rd 2015 9:34am by lolgaxe

Like rationalizing away the critique of liberal moral weighting in his book by obsessing over the "positive" traits that result (which ironically is measured by the very thing he was pointing out is a problem for liberals). It's ironic that your defense of the liberal mindset because "conservatives put less weight on caring, so we liberals are better" is itself an example of the very thing he was writing about. As I mentioned above, liberals put more weight on it, because they are not putting as much weight on other things. But that's not a good thing. And given that Haidt's point for doing the research (and subsequently writing the book) was to figure out why things that resonate strongly with liberals don't necessarily resonate as strongly with everyone else (specifically how Kerry could have failed to win the 2004 election), it would appear that despite reading the book, you came away with less of an understanding of its contents than I gleaned from just reading a few articles about the book.

Again, are you aware that he wrote the book specifically to try to get liberals to be more aware of this failing and maybe adjust their thinking (or at least how they communicate their thinking)? Doubling down on the very thing he identified as a flaw seems like a poor response.

I'll also point out that presumably all the folks who wrote the articles about the book did read it. And yet, they universally came away with a different understanding of its import than you did. So either they're all wrong about the key point of the book, or you are.



I love how, despite me correcting you on this numerous times in the past, you still persist in believing that analogies are identities. Um... An analogy has no purpose if the analogs are identical to whatever you're making an analogy of. They only work if they are actually different things, but have the same relationship between them. That's what an analogy is. Dogs don't case cars like cats chase mice because dogs aren't cats! Really?

Classic gbaji!

Haidt's research showed that conservatives go out of their way to avoid change, where they'll simply accepting mediocrity or even sub-par results rather than even simple reevaluation. I mention this because, as you prove constantly, you'll regularly resort to referencing your previous points, even after they've long been disproved and ineffectual, if not so erroneous to be laughable. So at the very least you can proudly say you're proving Haidt correct, if in an inadvertant manner. More Appeal to Anonymous Authority, but there's also Suppressed Evidence, Anecdotal Evidence, Division, Misleading Vividness, Red Herring ... you know what, here's the chart. Probably easier to make Bingo cards and make it a bi-monthly game. Hey, the best way to understand something is to completely ignore that something and listen to the opinions of people that agree with you.

I gave you a IRL rate up, since I can't do it here

You know they'll be taking credit for saving Texas from the evil American takeover, right?

So you're saying nothing happened? Shocking. Must be terrible for the left leaning media that there were no armed confrontations between angry citizens and/or Texas militia and the military as they appear to have desperately been hoping for. Must suck to spend so much time writing and warning about all these crazy people and their crazy fears, and all the crazy things they might do because of those fears, only to have no one do anything crazy after all. It's almost like the people saying "this is much ado about nothing" were right all along and those fearing the crazy were really the crazy ones, after all.

Next time, just wear a Chicken Little outfit. It'll be faster.

It's the irony that makes it so hilarious.

Second Amendment is sacred and must never be questioned, but there's plenty of wiggle room for the First.

Heh.

The Oort Cloud?