Unbiased study essentially shows liberals are social undesirables

[seanD]

This sort of insistence is only hurting your case.




If you're interested in serious discussion about the study, drop the 'us vs them' bit. It's not that hard.

If that's how you interpret the title, then I didn't make it an "us vs. them." They did. I didn't put "those who generally hold to a more liberal response," which is how they phrased it, because it was way too long. And, so far, I haven't really seen any serious discussion, just a bunch of butthurt liberals sore about how I phrased the title.

[Teallaura]

Hmm, I wonder what the Bible says about people who are considered social undesirables:

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did.
Matthew 21:31-32

Psst... I'm pretty sure that's NOT the definition the study used.

[Teallaura]

This sort of insistence is only hurting your case.




If you're interested in serious discussion about the study, drop the 'us vs them' bit. It's not that hard.

It was funny. The pathetic part is that those taking issue never bothered to look at the study. For all anyone but Sean knows, the study could be valid or invalid. He's the only one that seems to have bothered to read it - yet people are arguing against it.

For me, I think it's funny. But I'm not very interested in a study that starts off with a methodological error in its definitions - and I haven't even gotten to the 'social undesirables' thing. Both terms are charged and should never have been used - which makes me wonder what the authors were up to - or if they were really that desperate. Either way, I can think of more productive uses of time.

[Teallaura]

If that's how you interpret the title, then I didn't make it an "us vs. them." They did. I didn't put "those who generally hold to a more liberal response," which is how they phrased it, because it was way too long. And, so far, I haven't really seen any serious discussion, just a bunch of butthurt liberals sore about how I phrased the title.

Oh now, don't kid yourself. That title was designed to start a fight and you know it.

You were no more interested in debate than the rest of them were.

[Teallaura]

That you keep accusing people of being in any way perturbed by it and telling them to calm down is evidence that you see this thread mostly as a way of trying to elicit a strong reaction. That's the very definition of trolling, and that you have continually assumed that it got the reaction you were looking for is further evidence of your intention.

No, it isn't. Going for a strong reaction isn't trolling; starting a fight and watching the fireworks from the sidelines is. He wasn't interested in debate, obviously, but neither are you. However, he isn't trolling, either. That term is much too overused by those who react strongly but are unwilling to actually get into the fight.

[Teallaura]

Also, what's supposed to be on the 's head? It doesn't look like anything to me.

It's a bridge - you find trolls under bridges. Especially if you happen to be a billy goat...

[Teallaura]

It's hair. The smilie is a reference to troll dolls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_doll

Boom couldn't have gotten it that wrong...

[seanD]

It's a bridge - you find trolls under bridges. Especially if you happen to be a billy goat...

That makes more sense looking at the image lol.

[Carrikature]

It was funny. The pathetic part is that those taking issue never bothered to look at the study. For all anyone but Sean knows, the study could be valid or invalid. He's the only one that seems to have bothered to read it - yet people are arguing against it.

Not a warranted assumption on any level.

[Carrikature]

It's a bridge - you find trolls under bridges. Especially if you happen to be a billy goat...

It looks as much like a bridge as it does hair.

[Carrikature]

If that's how you interpret the title, then I didn't make it an "us vs. them." They did. I didn't put "those who generally hold to a more liberal response," which is how they phrased it, because it was way too long. And, so far, I haven't really seen any serious discussion, just a bunch of butthurt liberals sore about how I phrased the title.

Don't be ridiculous. "Studies show X does Y" is inherently 'us vs them', especially in this forum and people's general knowledge of your views.

[seanD]

There have been plenty of those threads posted especially in the apologetics section slamming Christians that actually were intent on trolling, yet I've never had the urge to give an emotional response until after I read the OP (that is, if I was even interested which I'm usually not). If people want to jump in a thread and and make an ass of themselves without reading the information carefully first because their feewings got hurt and suspect they're getting attacked, that's on them

[Teallaura]

Not a warranted assumption on any level.

Sure it is. Read the thread - ninety percent of the argument is about the title of the thread and from that the content of the study.

[Teallaura]

It looks as much like a bridge as it does hair.

Not really - the troll dolls you're talking about had hair all around their heads.