• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Man BUTCHERED family out fear of Obama winning.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,155
3,848
126
Oh really? You sound as if you think I'm lying. And all this time I thought you knew me better than that. Somehow I feel disappointed on several levels.
Your disappointment is self induced. I just said I see no problem with what you found funny and believe you when you say that's what you found funny. How you turned that into an implication I think you are lying is fucking beyond me.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,155
3,848
126
Phokus, that is incredibly profound! I always find these "revelations" of yours to be a very fitting reflection of your intellectual acuity.
It looks like a God Damned mental disease. The scientific facts about it are very recent and relatively unknown. I used to think it was a mental disease and the feeling is hard to shake.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Yeah, it's ridiculous to generalize about conservatives from this incident.

One thing interesting about this - the right leaning Daily Mail makes mention of an Obama re-election being a possible motive. However, the American MSM sources who are reporting on this haven't mentioned it so far:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/defense-contractor-family-found-dead-virginia/story?id=17331623#.UGX3u1GeoYw
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57521533-504083/father-killed-wife-2-sons-in-virginia-murder-suicide-police-say/

Either the "liberal media" isn't being so liberal this time around, or perhaps the Mail just has the facts wrong.
 

JM Aggie08

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,546
259
126
First and foremost, OP, you are a trolling fuck.

Second, there is no mention of 'butchering' anywhere in the article, so quit being such a dramatic little priss about the whole situation.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Your disappointment is self induced. I just said I see no problem with what you found funny and believe you when you say that's what you found funny. How you turned that into an implication I think you are lying is fucking beyond me.
Well then...I must thank you for taking my word for it. You're more than gracious.
 

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0
Stupid post is stupid. Learn to read, learn to reason, learn where to post. Foolish ignorance belongs in P&N.

Edit: Forgot to mention, your title is wrong as well. The article clearly states the man was mentally ill.
It also indicated that the system is broken. They now let mentally ill people own guns beside the trigger happy nut jobs.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
You poor poor deluded fool. The science that you say was debunked you debunked like the church debunked Galileo. The science says that conservatives deny science when it conflicts with their delusions, and that the more the science is proven right the more conservatives deny it. You wouldn't know what debunked is even when it bites you in the ass.

But I will look at any scientific evidence from scientists that says what I've said is bunk. Good luck with that. Scientific evidence only please. And please do give me the evidence because you know what's at stake. It will mean that I am on God height and you're the worst piece of shit on the planet if you can't. You have got to prove me wrong or you're nothing. Everything you believe, everything that's good, your god and your religion, all in the toilet, so get busy.
You got debunked. Get over it. You are latching on to a failed analogy and now are going down with the ship. You look like a pathetic fool going on and on and on with the same post just reworded. Everyone here has seen it enough to make them sick.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,358
281
126
I did not see this debunking. Usually the person claiming dumbunking actually debunks things?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,155
3,848
126
Originally Posted by Moonbeam: You poor poor deluded fool. The science that you say was debunked you debunked like the church debunked Galileo. The science says that conservatives deny science when it conflicts with their delusions, and that the more the science is proven right the more conservatives deny it. You wouldn't know what debunked is even when it bites you in the ass.

But I will look at any scientific evidence from scientists that says what I've said is bunk. Good luck with that. Scientific evidence only please. And please do give me the evidence because you know what's at stake. It will mean that I am on God height and you're the worst piece of shit on the planet if you can't. You have got to prove me wrong or you're nothing. Everything you believe, everything that's good, your god and your religion, all in the toilet, so get busy.

Matt: You got debunked.

Mo: As predicted you have no proof, just your truthiness opinion.

Ma: Get over it.

Mo; Nothing to get over, you gots nutten.

Ma: You are latching on to a failed analogy and now are going down with the ship.

Mo: Bull shit truthiness again. No evidence presented.

Ma: You look like a pathetic fool going on and on and on with the same post just reworded. Everyone here has seen it enough to make them sick.

Mo: Anybody who knows something looks like an idiot who believe in their truthiness opinions but offer zip as evidence. None of the science I have talked about has been debunked. Its all our there on the web. Now you can dig in deeper. Poor poor you, trapped in a delusional reality.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
I did not see this debunking. Usually the person claiming dumbunking actually debunks things?
The burden of proof is on him. He is quoting a study of 1500 College Grad students and using it as representative of our entire nation. That automatically leaves out 75% of the population due to the fact that only 25% of our workforce ever graduates college. Do you see anyone else using the same “Brain Defect” lines Moonie uses? No. They are hogwash. I thoroughly stumped him the other day asking if one side has a brain defect and they switch political sides, do they take that brain defect with them? Still waiting for him to get back to me on that :)
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
The burden of proof is on him. He is quoting a study of 1500 College Grad students and using it as representative of our entire nation. That automatically leaves out 75% of the population due to the fact that only 25% of our workforce ever graduates college. Do you see anyone else using the same “Brain Defect” lines Moonie uses? No. They are hogwash. I thoroughly stumped him the other day asking if one side has a brain defect and they switch political sides, do they take that brain defect with them? Still waiting for him to get back to me on that :)
No Actually you said he was debunked. If you wanted to say the burden of proof is on him and what he presented wasn't sufficient, then say that.

Debunked implies you presented something to counter what he said and that's not true at all.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debunk
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,155
3,848
126
The burden of proof is on him. He is quoting a study of 1500 College Grad students and using it as representative of our entire nation. That automatically leaves out 75% of the population due to the fact that only 25% of our workforce ever graduates college. Do you see anyone else using the same “Brain Defect” lines Moonie uses? No. They are hogwash. I thoroughly stumped him the other day asking if one side has a brain defect and they switch political sides, do they take that brain defect with them? Still waiting for him to get back to me on that :)
You live in an amazing altered universe. Present your scientific evidence that college students brains aren't representative of the general population and don't give me any shit about it being obvious to you because what you call obvious is a product of your altered reality. I know that when I ask you for scientific evidence you haven't the slightest idea what I mean.

In this very thread this was my response to your brain defect being refereed to as a mental disease:
-------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phokus
Conservatism is a mental disease

M: Conservatism is an evolutionary adaption with group survival benefits that helped human groups out-compete other human and animal groups in situations where such competition exists.

In the modern world group competition, particularly with nuclear weapons, threatens the whole human race. What in one situation is an adaptive benefit in another becomes a liability so it is not a mental disease but a situational plus or minus.

Conservatives have three important moral frameworks that liberals generally lack that create team cohesion and team spirit. This is great when you are playing a sport and want to win, but a disaster when the demonization of the other team that so propels the will to win, turns against your own people. When the group is conservatives against liberals and they are all American, conservatives become cannibals. They destroy the very people who have the antidote to their particular misapplication of a survival technique, the capacity to reason more dispassionately and see that we are all on the same team and that internecine warfare is insane. Without an external enemy to direct their adaptive abilities toward, that ability turns on teams that are part of the same league. They destroy their own civilization by demonizing a part of it.
-------------------

So your defect has survival benefits when an external threat exists but is dangerous when there isn't.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,358
281
126
Matt1970

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're not a scientist, let alone someone who understands statistics and sampling methods.

PS - Having a degree in math and having taken probability, statistics, numerical analysis, etc, I will tell you 1500 people in any study is a freaking awesome sample regardless of any predisposition. You only really need a sample of 377 to get 95% +- 5% accuracy. At the very least you could probably add some error factor to the conclusion, but I doubt you would be able to directly dumbunk it without doing an equal or greater study.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Matt1970

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're not a scientist, let alone someone who understands statistics and sampling methods.

PS - Having a degree in math and having taken probability, statistics, numerical analysis, etc, I will tell you 1500 people in any study is a freaking awesome sample regardless of any predisposition. You only really need a sample of 377 to get 95% +- 5% accuracy. At the very least you could probably add some error factor to the conclusion, but I doubt you would be able to directly dumbunk it without doing an equal or greater study.
Then you should know that you don't go after a 25% group saying it is representative of our entire nation. A study like this is already biased to begin with so don't you think they are going to pick a sub-group to fit their needs?
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
Then you should know that you don't go after a 25% group saying it is representative of our entire nation. A study like this is already biased to begin with so don't you think they are going to pick a sub-group to fit their needs?
It depends on the sample. Where did the sample come from? They would have stated this in the study.

Your better offense/defense would be move away from statistics and focus on how speculations are being called facts.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,155
3,848
126
It depends on the sample. Where did the sample come from? They would have stated this in the study.

Your better offense/defense would be move away from statistics and focus on how speculations are being called facts.
He refers to one study that is just one of numerous others all pointing in the same direction. Not only have the anatomical details of liberal and conservative brains been examined, other studies confirm differences in factors used to make moral decisions. There is a certain urgency to these studies these days because of the science denial shown by conservatives that scientists themselves now see as a threat, the denial of global warming in particular. Not a good thing to stand on your hands while conservatives prevent actions that could save us from potential ecological disaster.

The problem as I read the science, is that conservative denial leads to demonization, basically of truth and that fact denial is a form of suicide. What to do is up in the air, but a consensus, it seems to me, by the thinkers in this area, is that liberals have to reach Conservatives using the kinds of conversion techniques that conservatives by which conservatives CAN be reached.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,358
281
126
Then you should know that you don't go after a 25% group saying it is representative of our entire nation. A study like this is already biased to begin with so don't you think they are going to pick a sub-group to fit their needs?
I don't think you understand how dependent vs independent variables work. Your hypothesis seems to be that education level would somehow discount the concluded relationship. At the very least this is a Red Herring. I haven't seen the actual datum so I can't directly dumbunk anything. However, I would bet at this level they took many variables into consideration and did their best to mitigate any anomalies.

All this kind of reminds me of global warming is a myth because it gets cold in the winter.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,155
3,848
126
Because its obvious, he did it because he was nuts.
Try to remember that you are basing what you consider obvious on the assumptions you make about truth. The notion that energy and mass are the same thing is obviously a lie. The notion that something can come from nothing is also obviously a lie. The real facts are, however, that these statements are true. The notion that you have unconscious motivations that influence your behavior and especially create denial, is also obviously false because you think you know what you're doing. The enemy of truth is being filled to the top with assumptions.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Try to remember that you are basing what you consider obvious on the assumptions you make about truth. The notion that energy and mass are the same thing is obviously a lie. The notion that something can come from nothing is also obviously a lie. The real facts are, however, that these statements are true. The notion that you have unconscious motivations that influence your behavior and especially create denial, is also obviously false because you think you know what you're doing. The enemy of truth is being filled to the top with assumptions.
Its not that something comes from nothing. Even if the guy listened to RW hate speech 18 hours a day and it caused his paranoid delusions, fact remains clinically sane people dont murder based on such influence.

So we are left with cause and effect, was it his RW paranoia the cause of his actions or mental illness?

Since there are many RW paranoid idiots right here on thsi forum not murdering anyone that it was his mental illness.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,155
3,848
126
Its not that something comes from nothing. Even if the guy listened to RW hate speech 18 hours a day and it caused his paranoid delusions, fact remains clinically sane people dont murder based on such influence.

So we are left with cause and effect, was it his RW paranoia the cause of his actions or mental illness?

Since there are many RW paranoid idiots right here on thsi forum not murdering anyone that it was his mental illness.
If RW hate speech created his paranoid delusions RW hate speech is an accomplice to murder. You can't prove that if the man had never been exposed to Obama hate manipulation purposefully designed to create hate, he would have killed anybody worrying about if Obama won. You want to reduce cause and effect ad absurdum, I see connections I think are pertinent. You could just as easily blame his finger for pulling the trigger. He had a finger with a will of its own.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY