• Scientists find a link between low intelligence and acceptance of 'pseudo-profound bulls***'

  • If it doesn't fit in another forum, chances are it belongs here.
If it doesn't fit in another forum, chances are it belongs here.
 #83425  by Anthrax666
 Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:56 am
Demeter wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:15 pm
PlusCaChange wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:09 pm
Kumacho wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:03 pm



You must dumb down your conversations to her level or be considered a phoney baloney to her.
You are as thick as your piss flaps.
I don't think it's that, she's not stupid in that way, she just has a kind of mania. I'm the most annoying because I make part of her doubt this obsession she's made so important to herself. I have to be a fraud and stupid to shut down that niggling doubt. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "na na na, I can't hear you"!
You're projecting. You're severely deluded because you can't allow yourself to consider the feelings of animals in any respect, because otherwise you'd have to feel guilty for funding their torture and early deaths.
 #83543  by HolidayFriday
 Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:56 pm
Demeter wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:10 am
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 57731.html

This applies to PlusCaChange and everyone who likes PlusCaChange's comments.

Deserves its own thread because it's hilarious.
I'm pretty sure you don't understand PlusCaChange. It's like when you used to try arguing with AmericanIdiot.

Your article is clearly about people who believe vague nonsense, not people who say things that seem vague to you personally. You're trying to construe that having an expanded vocabulary is stupid, and you don't even try to understanding what PlusCaChange is saying in the first place because it's anti-vegan.

Your article seems to sum itself up when it says:

"our findings are consistent with the idea that the tendency to rate vague, meaningless statements as profound is a legitimate psychological phenomenon that is consistently related to at least some variables of theoretical interest."

The people in question are depicted as hippies. Can you see why? I think it's somewhat "hilarious" that you think that article fits your complaint.

I should also mention that your linked site announced that it uses tracking cookies and clogged my browser twice with a long-running script. Thanks.

:?
 #83546  by HolidayFriday
 Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:03 pm
Demeter wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:32 pm
Your post is too stupid to spend energy responding to because you obviously either haven't read the "discussions" with PlusCaChange, or didn't understand them at all, which further proves my point.

And you're welcome.
You're like a freaking troll.
 #83592  by PlusCaChange
 Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:47 am
And she still hasn't said what would change her mind. I think that's very telling.

Remember it has to be susceptible of proof.

I also find it odd she can't seem to grasp the idea that the potential maximum lifespan of a creature is not the same as the average lifespan in natural conditions and that the difference, where the living population stays the same (as it usually does) is a function of the rate of reproduction and the age of maturity. For example, codfish can live up to 15 years but the average lifespan is probably a few weeks at most.
 #83600  by Demeter
 Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:08 am
If the world was turned upside down and all the scientific evidence was proven to be wrong and I was proven to be a schizophrenic who was only imagining what I saw through my own eyes and animals were actually inanimate objects with absolutely no feelings, then that might change my mind, but I would still eat vegan food to be safe - also because it tastes way better and is better for me as well.

Also, I don't know what brought on your retarded little rant but your assumptions are getting incredibly pathetic. And the natural lifespan of livestock is on average much longer than their lifespan in farms. But that's really besides the point, because nature is out of our control and balances itself out, but we have absolutely no reason to breed animals and kill them as babies for our snacks.

Your level of idiocy is off the charts. I honestly think you're probably the dumbest person on eBaum's.
 #83601  by edsbrian
 Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:18 am
Demeter wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:08 am
If the world was turned upside down and all the scientific evidence was proven to be wrong and I was proven to be a schizophrenic who was only imagining what I saw through my own eyes and animals were actually inanimate objects with absolutely no feelings, then that might change my mind, but I would still eat vegan food to be safe - also because it tastes way better and is better for me as well.

Also, I don't know what brought on your retarded little rant but your assumptions are getting incredibly pathetic. And the natural lifespan of livestock is on average much longer than their lifespan in farms. But that's really besides the point, because nature is out of our control and balances itself out, but we have absolutely no reason to breed animals and kill them as babies for our snacks.

Your level of idiocy is off the charts. I honestly think you're probably the dumbest person on eBaum's.
Could you have one of your personalities send me pictures of your vagina?
JohnnyP, SkeetDixon liked this