If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some logical Jesuit guy)   Some smarty-pants HS educator gives a great impromptu analysis of what can be taught to our kids from the Aurora media coverage. Difficulty: lots of words, reason   (geekreflection.blogspot.com) divider line 119
    More: Cool, morning  
•       •       •

13757 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2012 at 2:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-20 11:54:18 PM
Your blog doesnt suck.
 
2012-07-21 12:00:27 AM
subby can take his "reason" and stick it in his pocket! the media doesn't do reason.
 
2012-07-21 12:30:57 AM
That was a refreshingly well-written piece by some guy who should write more stuff like that.
 
2012-07-21 01:55:19 AM

talulahgosh: subby can take his "reason" and stick it in his pocket! the media doesn't do reason.


My thoughts exactly. If reason were more widespread, the media would actually have to WORK on finding FACTS rather than saying any shiat they wanted and still getting paid.
 
2012-07-21 02:31:03 AM
 
2012-07-21 02:32:46 AM
Dunno. I'm going to be glued to the tv for Ann Curry's GLORIOUS return this weekend to squeeze out every factoid about this story. The same 10 facts repeated over two hours is going to make for super duper entertaining TV. Yay News!

Loved this piece because it broke down the modern media. Are there no journalists left? Is it all about selling the story?
 
2012-07-21 02:38:29 AM
Wow, that was a refreshing read.

Strangely, it's not so dissimilar from what I was planning to do with my 5th-grade class this fall, leading into the presidential election. Read articles, derive the slant, check the credentials, use info from publications on various sides of issues, etc.

Kids need to know how to tell the difference between when they're being informed and when they're being sold something.
 
2012-07-21 02:40:06 AM
A buddy just wrote this, and I have to share.

For all of you out there who may be thinking, like Congressman Gohmert, that had one or more of the members of the audience for The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado been armed that he would have been able to successfully neutralize the attack, I would like to remind you of this:

On March 21, 1981, Ronald Reagan, The President of the United States, was shot while surrounded by the best trained bodyguards on planet Earth, all of whom were armed with the very best weaponry and other equipment available. The shooter, John Hinckley, Jr., was not fired at. In fact, he got punched in the head and pulled to the ground by Alfred Antenucci, a Cleveland, Ohio, labor official, who happened to be standing near to Hinckley when he opened fire.

My point, and I say this as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, is that other people with guns don't necessarily equal stopping the bad guy or preventing loss of like, The Secret Service didn't open fire on Hinckley because they were in a crowd and they considered the risk of hitting innocent civilians to be too great. Again, these are some of the best trained marksmen on the planet and they think taking shots in that situation is too big of a risk. Why then do these people assume that Joe Citizen should take risks that vastly more qualified individuals would refuse to take and that said risk would pay off?

The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening. No one could have predicted that a madman would shoot up a movie premiere. Or that a kid would shoot up his university, or a high school. There are the acts of madmen. Banning guns wouldn't have stopped it, and armed citizens in the theatre weren't likely to have stopped it either. We don't want to admit this because it's a scary truth. But remember that even though the news coverage will be constant and playing up the fear, the statistical likelihood of being caught in a shooting spree of this type is still infinitessimal.
 
2012-07-21 02:41:01 AM
My brain hurts now. I need to go back to a Penn State thread.
 
2012-07-21 02:42:10 AM
They really should be called 24 hour commentary channels. And most of those commentators seem to have below average to average intelligence at best. Something everybody's FOX News watching parents fail to understand. You're being informed very little except what one dumbass talking head thinks about things.
 
2012-07-21 02:44:19 AM
Can Someone tl;dr that?
/Ya know...for the kids...
 
2012-07-21 02:45:43 AM
Synopsis: today's news is just a profit center for the corporations that own them, interested more with ratings than facts.
 
2012-07-21 02:47:07 AM
Metal detectors at movie houses... problem solved
 
2012-07-21 02:47:33 AM
He sounds like one of the pseudo-intellectual types we see on Fark who have exotic sub-categories for a fallacy. "Oh, you're committing an Inverted Heliographic Jigowatt Fallacy of Diminishing Retroactive Returns."
 
2012-07-21 02:51:05 AM

weasil: Kids need to know how to tell the difference between when they're being informed and when they're being sold something.


When exactly is anyone in the world not being sold something? The CIA spends [CLASSIFIED] of dollars trying to figure out what's true and they're still paranoid. Analysts for that agency probably walk around all day laughing at the absurdity of the media farce. Let's take the Dark Knight itself as an example of the relentless propaganda. In what part of the movie are we being informed as opposed to being sold something?
 
2012-07-21 02:52:39 AM

butt-nuggets: Metal detectors at movie houses... problem solved


The shooter came in through a back door, not through the turnstyle. Your argument is stupid, and you're stupid for saying it.
 
2012-07-21 02:56:20 AM
I believe subby was referring to the "lots of words, reason" within the blog post. NOT the media says lots of words and uses reason. That's how I read it anyway.

The article was full of things that should be obvious, but have been slowly lost.
 
2012-07-21 02:58:23 AM

unicron702: A buddy just wrote this, and I have to share.

For all of you out there who may be thinking, like Congressman Gohmert, that had one or more of the members of the audience for The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado been armed that he would have been able to successfully neutralize the attack, I would like to remind you of this:

On March 21, 1981, Ronald Reagan, The President of the United States, was shot while surrounded by the best trained bodyguards on planet Earth, all of whom were armed with the very best weaponry and other equipment available. The shooter, John Hinckley, Jr., was not fired at. In fact, he got punched in the head and pulled to the ground by Alfred Antenucci, a Cleveland, Ohio, labor official, who happened to be standing near to Hinckley when he opened fire.

My point, and I say this as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, is that other people with guns don't necessarily equal stopping the bad guy or preventing loss of like, The Secret Service didn't open fire on Hinckley because they were in a crowd and they considered the risk of hitting innocent civilians to be too great. Again, these are some of the best trained marksmen on the planet and they think taking shots in that situation is too big of a risk. Why then do these people assume that Joe Citizen should take risks that vastly more qualified individuals would refuse to take and that said risk would pay off?

The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening. No one could have predicted that a madman would shoot up a movie premiere. Or that a kid would shoot up his university, or a high school. There are the acts of madmen. Banning guns wouldn't have stopped it, and armed citizens in the theatre weren't likely to have stopped it either. We don't want to admit this because it's a scary truth. But remember that even though the news coverage will be constant and playing up the fear, the statistical likelihood of being caught in a shooting sp ...


I don't disagree with a lot of this.
but the reason hinckley wasn't shot dead likely had nothing to do with the fact that there were citizens around.

the likliehood is that hicnkley wasn't shot because it was all over and he was out of bullets in literally 1.7 seconds.
if the assassin was standing there unloading with a mossberg, and then switched to a hunting rifle, before pulling out a pistol, like the shooter at the batman film did, they sure as fark would have shot him no matter who was behind him (even though presumably no one was behind the shooter at teh batman film as he was at the front).

comparing the two is pretty ridiculous. not as dumb as the congressmen, but not too far off either.
they'd shoot down an aircraft flying over DC to save the president, with the massive loss of life that would entail.
the secret service isn't not going to not take a shot at a guy who is shooting at the president because granny is 3 feet next to him. so just tell your friend to quit making shiat up.
 
2012-07-21 02:58:41 AM

Laocoon: Your blog doesnt suck.


Yup.

/kinda a fan of the Jesuits
 
2012-07-21 03:01:53 AM

weasil: Wow, that was a refreshing read.

Strangely, it's not so dissimilar from what I was planning to do with my 5th-grade class this fall, leading into the presidential election. Read articles, derive the slant, check the credentials, use info from publications on various sides of issues, etc.

Kids need to know how to tell the difference between when they're being informed and when they're being sold something.


Woah woah woah. Hold on there, buster. You shouldn't be indoctrinating children to think for themselves.
 
2012-07-21 03:02:04 AM

Fade2black: butt-nuggets: Metal detectors at movie houses... problem solved

The shooter came in through a back door, not through the turnstyle. Your argument is stupid, and you're stupid for saying it.


ok. so you're smart then. you win.

how about they remove the possibility of someone coming in through a back door with guns? Hard to do, yet not impossible, Einstein
 
2012-07-21 03:02:33 AM
fusillade762 :Synopsis: today's news is just a profit center for the corporations that own them, interested more with ratings than facts.

I was alive and aware when they predicted it (somewhere around "A Current Affair") and sadly have lived to see it happen. It would be easy to say that it was always this way but it really, really wasn't.
 
2012-07-21 03:06:00 AM

REO-Weedwagon: He sounds like one of the pseudo-intellectual types we see on Fark who have exotic sub-categories for a fallacy. "Oh, you're committing an Inverted Heliographic Jigowatt Fallacy of Diminishing Retroactive Returns."


.You sound retarded mentally challenged, Bless you brother.
 
2012-07-21 03:07:21 AM

unicron702: A buddy just wrote this, and I have to share.

For all of you out there who may be thinking, like Congressman Gohmert, that had one or more of the members of the audience for The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado been armed that he would have been able to successfully neutralize the attack, I would like to remind you of this:

On March 21, 1981, Ronald Reagan, The President of the United States, was shot while surrounded by the best trained bodyguards on planet Earth, all of whom were armed with the very best weaponry and other equipment available. The shooter, John Hinckley, Jr., was not fired at. In fact, he got punched in the head and pulled to the ground by Alfred Antenucci, a Cleveland, Ohio, labor official, who happened to be standing near to Hinckley when he opened fire.

My point, and I say this as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, is that other people with guns don't necessarily equal stopping the bad guy or preventing loss of like, The Secret Service didn't open fire on Hinckley because they were in a crowd and they considered the risk of hitting innocent civilians to be too great. Again, these are some of the best trained marksmen on the planet and they think taking shots in that situation is too big of a risk. Why then do these people assume that Joe Citizen should take risks that vastly more qualified individuals would refuse to take and that said risk would pay off?

The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening. No one could have predicted that a madman would shoot up a movie premiere. Or that a kid would shoot up his university, or a high school. There are the acts of madmen. Banning guns wouldn't have stopped it, and armed citizens in the theatre weren't likely to have stopped it either. We don't want to admit this because it's a scary truth. But remember that even though the news coverage will be constant and playing up the fear, the statistical likelihood of being caught in a shooting sp ...


Whether he's right or wrong he's a lot more right than Gohmert and a lot of the morons who posted in the original thread. Maybe if someone else in that theater had been armed this would have turned out differently...unfortunately no one did and if they were they didn't shoot back so we'll never know. I love how these guys can't even wait until the shell casings on the ground cool before pulling out their opinions and waving them in everyone's faces.
 
2012-07-21 03:07:29 AM
* News Channel Reports factual data
* During the commentary/analysis period, the data is interpreted to draw a more meaningful/slanted conclusion to the benefit of the station, political bias, commentator, ratings, etc.
* During the next NEWS period, the conclusion is reported as breaking news about the original story citing experts, sources, etc.


You know, somebody should write a book about that kind of BS: About how mass media attempts to pass off crap as news.

And about how Internet news aggregation sites bust their ankles tripping over themselves to overflow the cesspool.

And dedicate their sites to nurturing and coddling professional sociopaths who increase the news aggregators' site's deceptive market numbers by doing nothing but prolifically and blatantly irritating normal people into responding to patently insincere provocations.

That might be a good book.
 
2012-07-21 03:08:41 AM
ok, it's early in the morning and for some reason i can't stomach coffee or any similar drink. This article is too short for my currently stunted attention span, so tl;dr. Can anyone sum it up for me, please?
 
2012-07-21 03:09:23 AM

REO-Weedwagon: He sounds like one of the pseudo-intellectual types we see on Fark who have exotic sub-categories for a fallacy. "Oh, you're committing an Inverted Heliographic Jigowatt Fallacy of Diminishing Retroactive Returns."


You know what you sound like?
 
2012-07-21 03:12:39 AM
there is a patriot battery near the white house.
it isn't there to scare away the birds.
they will put civilians lives at risk if it will improve the chances of the president surviving.
and any other calculation made by the service charged with putting the life of the president above all other considerations would be ludicrous.
 
2012-07-21 03:13:10 AM
I had this on TV this morning as white noise. My 12 year old daughter came downstairs and started watching, I thought it would be unfair to change the channel to try to shield her from the news so I let her watch and when she had questions or needed explanations, (the town we live in is named Aurora also, but not in CO). I explained to her as well as I could that sometimes people do things for no explainable reason and that very rarely, really sick people do really sick things, again for no explainable reasons.

But the best part of our conversation came about 20 minutes after she came downstairs and she called BS on the Today show for showing the same video clip and saying the same information as they did earlier. "Why are they saying this again dad?" she asked. I told her why - "because they have no more information yet so they just say the same thing over and over" I told her. My daughter then got up from where she was sitting, walked across the room to where I was and although there was no contest involved, she looked at me like she had beaten me in a game and grabbed the remote and changed my white noise from the Today show to something on the Disney Channel.

Can't say I missed any news though, so I suppose if it was a game, she did win didn't she?
 
2012-07-21 03:13:51 AM

Smoking GNU: ok, it's early in the morning and for some reason i can't stomach coffee or any similar drink. This article is too short for my currently stunted attention span, so tl;dr. Can anyone sum it up for me, please?


need to teach kids to filter all sources and specifically those who claim to be experts.
 
2012-07-21 03:16:15 AM
I'm getting advice on how discern fact and truth from a guy who believes all of the stuff in a 2000 year old book of fiction called the Bible?
 
2012-07-21 03:17:21 AM
"lots of words"? Really? Are you functionally retarded? There's about 1500 words. You can read the whole thing in 5 minutes. And it will be time well spent.
 
2012-07-21 03:18:35 AM

johnscjr: Can't say I missed any news though, so I suppose if it was a game, she did win didn't she?


You both won. Her for being an intelligent young lady and you, for being a successful father
 
2012-07-21 03:19:45 AM

unicron702: A buddy just wrote this, and I have to share.

For all of you out there who may be thinking, like Congressman Gohmert, that had one or more of the members of the audience for The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado been armed that he would have been able to successfully neutralize the attack, I would like to remind you of this:

On March 21, 1981, Ronald Reagan, The President of the United States, was shot while surrounded by the best trained bodyguards on planet Earth, all of whom were armed with the very best weaponry and other equipment available. The shooter, John Hinckley, Jr., was not fired at. In fact, he got punched in the head and pulled to the ground by Alfred Antenucci, a Cleveland, Ohio, labor official, who happened to be standing near to Hinckley when he opened fire.

My point, and I say this as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, is that other people with guns don't necessarily equal stopping the bad guy or preventing loss of like, The Secret Service didn't open fire on Hinckley because they were in a crowd and they considered the risk of hitting innocent civilians to be too great. Again, these are some of the best trained marksmen on the planet and they think taking shots in that situation is too big of a risk. Why then do these people assume that Joe Citizen should take risks that vastly more qualified individuals would refuse to take and that said risk would pay off?

The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening. No one could have predicted that a madman would shoot up a movie premiere. Or that a kid would shoot up his university, or a high school. There are the acts of madmen. Banning guns wouldn't have stopped it, and armed citizens in the theatre weren't likely to have stopped it either. We don't want to admit this because it's a scary truth. But remember that even though the news coverage will be constant and playing up the fear, the statistical likelihood of being caught in a shooting sp ...


That was too mature. Get ready to be flamed.
 
2012-07-21 03:20:46 AM

johnscjr: I had this on TV this morning as white noise. My 12 year old daughter came downstairs and started watching, I thought it would be unfair to change the channel to try to shield her from the news so I let her watch and when she had questions or needed explanations, (the town we live in is named Aurora also, but not in CO). I explained to her as well as I could that sometimes people do things for no explainable reason and that very rarely, really sick people do really sick things, again for no explainable reasons.

But the best part of our conversation came about 20 minutes after she came downstairs and she called BS on the Today show for showing the same video clip and saying the same information as they did earlier. "Why are they saying this again dad?" she asked. I told her why - "because they have no more information yet so they just say the same thing over and over" I told her. My daughter then got up from where she was sitting, walked across the room to where I was and although there was no contest involved, she looked at me like she had beaten me in a game and grabbed the remote and changed my white noise from the Today show to something on the Disney Channel.

Can't say I missed any news though, so I suppose if it was a game, she did win didn't she?


Sounds like you're raising a daughter who is smarter than most adults.

Good job, dad. :-)
 
2012-07-21 03:21:03 AM
An abstract for a blog post? Seriously?
 
2012-07-21 03:21:54 AM

unicron702: A buddy just wrote this, and I have to share.

For all of you out there who may be thinking, like Congressman Gohmert, that had one or more of the members of the audience for The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado been armed that he would have been able to successfully neutralize the attack, I would like to remind you of this:

On March 21, 1981, Ronald Reagan, The President of the United States, was shot while surrounded by the best trained bodyguards on planet Earth, all of whom were armed with the very best weaponry and other equipment available. The shooter, John Hinckley, Jr., was not fired at. In fact, he got punched in the head and pulled to the ground by Alfred Antenucci, a Cleveland, Ohio, labor official, who happened to be standing near to Hinckley when he opened fire.

My point, and I say this as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, is that other people with guns don't necessarily equal stopping the bad guy or preventing loss of like, The Secret Service didn't open fire on Hinckley because they were in a crowd and they considered the risk of hitting innocent civilians to be too great. Again, these are some of the best trained marksmen on the planet and they think taking shots in that situation is too big of a risk. Why then do these people assume that Joe Citizen should take risks that vastly more qualified individuals would refuse to take and that said risk would pay off?

The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening. No one could have predicted that a madman would shoot up a movie premiere. Or that a kid would shoot up his university, or a high school. There are the acts of madmen. Banning guns wouldn't have stopped it, and armed citizens in the theatre weren't likely to have stopped it either. We don't want to admit this because it's a scary truth. But remember that even though the news coverage will be constant and playing up the fear, the statistical likelihood of being caught in a shooting sp ...


Well put unicron702 (if that is your real name) I agree with that except I don't believe the second amendment provides for individuals to own guns. I would add that I believe it also does not deny that either. It is a states rights issue. "well regulated militia" being the key phrase.
 
2012-07-21 03:25:10 AM

Bathia_Mapes: Sounds like you're raising a daughter who is smarter than most adults.

Good job, dad. :-)


Agreed. Kudos
 
2012-07-21 03:30:50 AM

weasil: Wow, that was a refreshing read.

Strangely, it's not so dissimilar from what I was planning to do with my 5th-grade class this fall, leading into the presidential election. Read articles, derive the slant, check the credentials, use info from publications on various sides of issues, etc.

Kids need to know how to tell the difference between when they're being informed and when they're being sold something.


BRAV-FARKING-O. Seriously, this stuff should be taught every year from an early age. College is too late to start teaching basic rhetoric and critical thinking.
 
2012-07-21 03:42:01 AM

fusillade762: Synopsis: today's news is just a profit center for the corporations that own them, interested more with ratings than facts.


Actually, I think the synopsis is more like this: News organizations no longer use critical thinking, so the audience must learn how to do so.

What you said isn't incorrect, but it's not what the author was getting at.
 
2012-07-21 03:47:04 AM

unicron702: The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening. No one could have predicted that a madman would shoot up a movie premiere.


You had me until here.

Every time someone dismisses a sniper and/or mass murderer as a "madman" or "just some crazy", those people, in their own way, enable the next sniper shooting and/or mass murder. You say "there's no way to predict this", except for the many, many prior incidents where a "madman" or "just some crazy" committed the same acts. By dismissing them as "madmen" or "just some crazies", you close the door to possible analysis and predictive capabilities of the acts themselves. And I'm not talking about the "news desk analysis" that TFA was ranting about; I'm talking about research from people trained in this kind of thing using months out of their time to help predict how someone with similar signs might do.

But no, no one could prevent or predict this. Because vigilance is hard. Placing blame and armchair analysis after the fact is easy.
 
2012-07-21 03:51:39 AM

Bathia_Mapes: johnscjr: I had this on TV this morning as white noise. My 12 year old daughter came downstairs and started watching, I thought it would be unfair to change the channel to try to shield her from the news so I let her watch and when she had questions or needed explanations, (the town we live in is named Aurora also, but not in CO). I explained to her as well as I could that sometimes people do things for no explainable reason and that very rarely, really sick people do really sick things, again for no explainable reasons.

But the best part of our conversation came about 20 minutes after she came downstairs and she called BS on the Today show for showing the same video clip and saying the same information as they did earlier. "Why are they saying this again dad?" she asked. I told her why - "because they have no more information yet so they just say the same thing over and over" I told her. My daughter then got up from where she was sitting, walked across the room to where I was and although there was no contest involved, she looked at me like she had beaten me in a game and grabbed the remote and changed my white noise from the Today show to something on the Disney Channel.

Can't say I missed any news though, so I suppose if it was a game, she did win didn't she?

Sounds like you're raising a daughter who is smarter than most adults.

Good job, dad. :-)


Pre-teen child demonstrates the critical thinking skills to break free from the shackles of stultifying media manipulation by changing the television station from news to... the Disney Channel.

Hope for the future might be a little premature.
 
2012-07-21 03:56:19 AM

unicron702: The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening. No one could have predicted that a madman would shoot up a movie premiere. Or that a kid would shoot up his university, or a high school. There are the acts of madmen


So, if the answer is "a certain proportion of people are just crazy", why are these events massively more prevalent in some places than in others? Why does America breed spree shooters, why does radical Islam breed suicide bombers? The UK a country with 20% the population of the US (and a broadly similar culture and broadly similar standard of Westernised living, has around 1% of the US's firearm deaths). Even counting the Breivik murders, Norway will have a lower murder rate than the US in 2011.

Why are Americans 20 times more murderous than Britons? If you figure this out, maybe there is a way to prevent this from happening.
 
2012-07-21 04:06:59 AM

IlGreven: unicron702: The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening. No one could have predicted that a madman would shoot up a movie premiere.

You had me until here.

Every time someone dismisses a sniper and/or mass murderer as a "madman" or "just some crazy", those people, in their own way, enable the next sniper shooting and/or mass murder. You say "there's no way to predict this", except for the many, many prior incidents where a "madman" or "just some crazy" committed the same acts. By dismissing them as "madmen" or "just some crazies", you close the door to possible analysis and predictive capabilities of the acts themselves. And I'm not talking about the "news desk analysis" that TFA was ranting about; I'm talking about research from people trained in this kind of thing using months out of their time to help predict how someone with similar signs might do.

But no, no one could prevent or predict this. Because vigilance is hard. Placing blame and armchair analysis after the fact is easy.


On April 24, vote "Yes" on the national Pre-crime Initiative.
 
2012-07-21 04:10:55 AM
Nice read. Well written. One thing I found missing though was that the media is engaged in 24/7 propaganda against the people and they do not want people to think for themselves nor do they want to give the facts. From what I've seen when a media person (talking head, so-called reporter- that should really be called a 'reader' because that's all they do is read off a tele prompter) interrupts a guest it is a tell-tale sign that this is information they don't want you to know. Information that is outside of their agenda. And they wear ear pieces and have someone guiding the conversation which you do not see.
 
2012-07-21 04:27:20 AM

unicron702: My point, and I say this as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, is that other people with guns don't necessarily equal stopping the bad guy or preventing loss of like, The Secret Service didn't open fire on Hinckley because they were in a crowd and they considered the risk of hitting innocent civilians to be too great. Again, these are some of the best trained marksmen on the planet and they think taking shots in that situation is too big of a risk. Why then do these people assume that Joe Citizen should take risks that vastly more qualified individuals would refuse to take and that said risk would pay off?


Exactly... I am a gun owner, and I went through CCW training(Never sent in the final paperwork though), and I carry my gun when I travel. Between Salt Lake and Phoenix are some pretty long empty stretches of highway... Anyway, just because I carry my gun on these trips, it doesn't mean that I am going to jump out, pistol blazing, if I see trouble. I would only attempt to take on a gunman if it was safe to do so. What the anti-gun crowd fails to realize time and time again is tht gun does NOT equal "shooting people".

The amazing thing here is that it is a Republican making this statement.

As for the blog, I watch the news on something like this until stuff gets repeated, Then I wait a day or two before touching the story again. In the first few minutes, the story is covered, and nobody actually has anything new too add,
 
2012-07-21 04:27:53 AM

gwowen: Why are Americans 20 times more murderous than Britons? If you figure this out, maybe there is a way to prevent this from happening.


I contend that they are not 20 times more murderous than Britons. They are just many times more successful at murderous activities than Britons. Partly due to the difference in their relationships to firearms and explosives.

/The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution ensures that that will be the case for the foreseeable future.
//Whether or not the benefit is worth the cost is an entirely different argument.
 
2012-07-21 04:29:30 AM
Dear REO-Weedwagon,

Best Book in Logical Fallacy Category:

"How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age" (byTheodore Schick and Lewis Vaugh)

/cheers and luck to you in your future cognitive adventures.
 
2012-07-21 04:35:30 AM

sminkypinky: I'm getting advice on how discern fact and truth from a guy who believes all of the stuff in a 2000 year old book of fiction called the Bible?


Let's not turn this into an anti-atheist thread.
 
2012-07-21 04:38:16 AM

BuckTurgidson: * News Channel Reports factual data
* During the commentary/analysis period, the data is interpreted to draw a more meaningful/slanted conclusion to the benefit of the station, political bias, commentator, ratings, etc.
* During the next NEWS period, the conclusion is reported as breaking news about the original story citing experts, sources, etc.


You know, somebody should write a book about that kind of BS: About how mass media attempts to pass off crap as news.

And about how Internet news aggregation sites bust their ankles tripping over themselves to overflow the cesspool.

And dedicate their sites to nurturing and coddling professional sociopaths who increase the news aggregators' site's deceptive market numbers by doing nothing but prolifically and blatantly irritating normal people into responding to patently insincere provocations.

That might be a good book.


Nah, it just sounds like the kind of half-cocked idea someone would get after hanging around a news-aggregating site for a few days. Nobody would ever read it.
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report