You lose....again

(08-27-2014 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Further to my point,

You can take what I just said and break all of that down by all sort of other things, income, location, etc.

The point is that just like any statistic, they can be made to say whatever you want them to. It's folly to try and use data like that to claim one group is intellectually superior to another.

That's why half my argument is to just look at the conservative party platform (pro evolution, climate change doesn't exist, gays are scary) to find your answer

That's an opinion though. It has nothing to do with your innate level of intelligence.

Besides, IQ doesn't measure one's intelligence. We've seen that over and over again. Unless, you believe that black people are innately dumber than whites, since whites score higher consistently.

I think a lot of this is a maturity thing John. You don't agree with conservatives and you don't really see why these people think this way. You want to try to answer the why. Your answer is that you are smarter but as you develop and grow you'll see it has nothing to do with the other person's intelligence. It has to do with a million other things in that person's life.

Wanting to make political opponents out to be simply stupid or somehow inferior to you or your side is an immature and nasty little thing to believe. You won't go far in this world thinking everybody who disagrees with you is stupid.

In fairness to you, you are younger than a lot of folks on here. That phase will pass.

so thinking science is silly is just an opinion and not an assumption of ones intelligence...

just to make sure I read that right.....

just an fyi I don think all cons are stupid, just a larger % of them are than libs. Plenty of studies show this and if you really wanna say the party of creationism is the one with the brains then....well you just back up my point

(08-27-2014 11:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Further to my point,

You can take what I just said and break all of that down by all sort of other things, income, location, etc.

The point is that just like any statistic, they can be made to say whatever you want them to. It's folly to try and use data like that to claim one group is intellectually superior to another.

That's why half my argument is to just look at the conservative party platform (pro evolution, climate change doesn't exist, gays are scary) to find your answer

That's an opinion though. It has nothing to do with your innate level of intelligence.

Besides, IQ doesn't measure one's intelligence. We've seen that over and over again. Unless, you believe that black people are innately dumber than whites, since whites score higher consistently.

I think a lot of this is a maturity thing John. You don't agree with conservatives and you don't really see why these people think this way. You want to try to answer the why. Your answer is that you are smarter but as you develop and grow you'll see it has nothing to do with the other person's intelligence. It has to do with a million other things in that person's life.

Wanting to make political opponents out to be simply stupid or somehow inferior to you or your side is an immature and nasty little thing to believe. You won't go far in this world thinking everybody who disagrees with you is stupid.

In fairness to you, you are younger than a lot of folks on here. That phase will pass.

so thinking science is silly is just an opinion and not an assumption of ones intelligence...

just to make sure I read that right.....

just an fyi I don think all cons are stupid, just a larger % of them are than libs. Plenty of studies show this and if you really wanna say the party of creationism is the one with the brains then....well you just back up my point

It runs a lot deeper than that.

Is liberal 'faith' in 'science' a faith in science itself or trust in people with credentials?

You can line up 1,000 PhDs in front of me and tell me the grass isn't green. I won't accept it.

My point isn't to walk down the road but to point out there are so many ways to look at this. Liberals are more trusting in authority than conservatives are in some way that comes out in a lot of different forms.

There is no party of brains. Putting it very basically, across the social spectrum, the left is made up of the most ignorant among us and academics. The right is made up primarily of middle folks and the more industriously inclined, engineers and business people.

Plus, people can be many things at once and these statistics don't take that into consideration.

You can be a brilliant engineer or accountant and yet be a creationist. Is that person stupid or unintelligent? No. You can know everything there is to know about one subject and be entirely ignorant of another, but does that make you stupid or unintelligent? Does it even make you ignorant on the whole?

This is all about wanting to paint people a certain way and that doesn't help or result in anything positive.

(08-27-2014 10:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Further to my point,

You can take what I just said and break all of that down by all sort of other things, income, location, etc.

The point is that just like any statistic, they can be made to say whatever you want them to. It's folly to try and use data like that to claim one group is intellectually superior to another.

That's why half my argument is to just look at the conservative party platform (pro evolution, climate change doesn't exist, gays are scary) to find your answer

(08-27-2014 11:48 AM)john01992 Wrote:  



You lose....again

Hold your horses. Don't tell me you fell for the IQ by state hoax from the elections that democrats ran with and The Economist and others had to retract? It was a hoax

Even your second chart says it shouldn't be taken as fact at the bottom. LOL

(08-27-2014 11:48 AM)john01992 Wrote:  



You lose....again

The Left has more idiots than anyone.
Take a trip to Hollywood.

The first thing to note is that in the vast majority of those red states, the people pulling the average IQ down aren't the ones voting red.

(08-27-2014 12:10 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Further to my point,

You can take what I just said and break all of that down by all sort of other things, income, location, etc.

The point is that just like any statistic, they can be made to say whatever you want them to. It's folly to try and use data like that to claim one group is intellectually superior to another.

That's why half my argument is to just look at the conservative party platform (pro evolution, climate change doesn't exist, gays are scary) to find your answer

(08-27-2014 11:48 AM)john01992 Wrote:  



You lose....again

Hold your horses. Don't tell me you fell for the IQ by state hoax from the elections that democrats ran with and The Economist and others had to retract? It was a hoax

Even your second chart says it shouldn't be taken as fact at the bottom. LOL

nah I just enjoy pulling a dixie and trolling the cons with BS for once.

(08-27-2014 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The first thing to note is that in the vast majority of those red states, the people pulling the average IQ down aren't the ones voting red.

Ding Ding Ding

there it is ladies and gents. so if those IQ rates were in fact correct, you are basically saying the minority is the majority and the majority is the minority???

Someone from the Left is always trying to change a conversation when it
is not going to their liking.

(08-27-2014 12:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The first thing to note is that in the vast majority of those red states, the people pulling the average IQ down aren't the ones voting red.

Ding Ding Ding

there it is ladies and gents. so if those IQ rates were in fact correct, you are basically saying the minority is the majority and the majority is the minority???

NO, what he's saying that in a red state, the inner cities have some incredibly stupid liberals which bring the average IQ way down. In other words, in the liberal camp, there is dumb, and then there is a really special case of dumb.

(08-27-2014 12:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 12:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The first thing to note is that in the vast majority of those red states, the people pulling the average IQ down aren't the ones voting red.

Ding Ding Ding

there it is ladies and gents. so if those IQ rates were in fact correct, you are basically saying the minority is the majority and the majority is the minority???

NO, what he's saying that in a red state, the inner cities have some incredibly stupid liberals which bring the average IQ way down. In other words, in the liberal camp, there is dumb, and then there is a really special case of dumb.

add another dumbas.s to the thread.

(08-25-2014 11:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yep, just looked it up.

The average Fox News viewer overall is 68.8, while the average ages of MSNBC and CNN viewers were 62.5 and 62.8, respectively.

and here's another interesting line:

While Fox dominates with the top 14 shows in overall viewers, the total day average for Fox News in the key advertising demographic of the 25- to 54-year-old category was 177,000 viewers, only the second time Fox has gone below a 200,000 average since 2001.

MSNBC averaged 103,000 viewers, while CNN averaged just 99,000.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014...89393.html

So we're now "ageists"? Old people don't count? Hell, if anything that's the people that know how to spend money on your advertisers..

(08-25-2014 11:11 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Quote:FNC, with several shows hitting 2014 highs, won in adults 25-54 and total viewers on both a primetime and total-day basis for Monday through Friday of last week. Tune-in was above average across the news board due to coverage of the protests in Ferguson and the murder of James Foley.

Looking at the Nielsen numbers, Fox News averaged 443,000 adults 25-54 in primetime to finish ahead of CNN (361,000) in the key news demo, with both networks more than doubling the tally of MSNBC (179,000). CNN had narrowly won in the demo on Monday and Tuesday, before Fox News asserted itself Wednesday through Friday.

So much for the old viewer attacks at FNC by a few libs here.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/fox-news...201290087/

That's weird, I watched the Ferguson protests on CNN and MSNBC. Fox didn't send anyone there to cover them. So how was their rating improved by this?

(08-28-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 11:11 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Quote:FNC, with several shows hitting 2014 highs, won in adults 25-54 and total viewers on both a primetime and total-day basis for Monday through Friday of last week. Tune-in was above average across the news board due to coverage of the protests in Ferguson and the murder of James Foley.

Looking at the Nielsen numbers, Fox News averaged 443,000 adults 25-54 in primetime to finish ahead of CNN (361,000) in the key news demo, with both networks more than doubling the tally of MSNBC (179,000). CNN had narrowly won in the demo on Monday and Tuesday, before Fox News asserted itself Wednesday through Friday.

So much for the old viewer attacks at FNC by a few libs here.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/fox-news...201290087/

That's weird, I watched the Ferguson protests on CNN and MSNBC. Fox didn't send anyone there to cover them. So how was their rating improved by this?

By reporting the truth. Despite the butthurt it causes liberals, many Americans still want the truth reported.

(08-27-2014 12:47 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 11:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yep, just looked it up.

The average Fox News viewer overall is 68.8, while the average ages of MSNBC and CNN viewers were 62.5 and 62.8, respectively.

and here's another interesting line:

While Fox dominates with the top 14 shows in overall viewers, the total day average for Fox News in the key advertising demographic of the 25- to 54-year-old category was 177,000 viewers, only the second time Fox has gone below a 200,000 average since 2001.

MSNBC averaged 103,000 viewers, while CNN averaged just 99,000.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014...89393.html

So we're now "ageists"? Old people don't count? Hell, if anything that's the people that know how to spend money on your advertisers..

someone sounds butthurt

Not true feet. I saw a Fox network truck in the Ferguson news clips.

(08-28-2014 12:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 11:11 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Quote:FNC, with several shows hitting 2014 highs, won in adults 25-54 and total viewers on both a primetime and total-day basis for Monday through Friday of last week. Tune-in was above average across the news board due to coverage of the protests in Ferguson and the murder of James Foley.

Looking at the Nielsen numbers, Fox News averaged 443,000 adults 25-54 in primetime to finish ahead of CNN (361,000) in the key news demo, with both networks more than doubling the tally of MSNBC (179,000). CNN had narrowly won in the demo on Monday and Tuesday, before Fox News asserted itself Wednesday through Friday.

So much for the old viewer attacks at FNC by a few libs here.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/fox-news...201290087/

That's weird, I watched the Ferguson protests on CNN and MSNBC. Fox didn't send anyone there to cover them. So how was their rating improved by this?

By reporting the truth. Despite the butthurt it causes liberals, many Americans still want the truth reported.

How is reporting the truth not being there at all. It doesn't get any more true than live footage.

(08-28-2014 04:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 12:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 11:11 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Quote:FNC, with several shows hitting 2014 highs, won in adults 25-54 and total viewers on both a primetime and total-day basis for Monday through Friday of last week. Tune-in was above average across the news board due to coverage of the protests in Ferguson and the murder of James Foley.

Looking at the Nielsen numbers, Fox News averaged 443,000 adults 25-54 in primetime to finish ahead of CNN (361,000) in the key news demo, with both networks more than doubling the tally of MSNBC (179,000). CNN had narrowly won in the demo on Monday and Tuesday, before Fox News asserted itself Wednesday through Friday.

So much for the old viewer attacks at FNC by a few libs here.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/fox-news...201290087/

That's weird, I watched the Ferguson protests on CNN and MSNBC. Fox didn't send anyone there to cover them. So how was their rating improved by this?

By reporting the truth. Despite the butthurt it causes liberals, many Americans still want the truth reported.

How is reporting the truth not being there at all. It doesn't get any more true than live footage.

Watch, and you will see the truth. It might cause butthurt though.

By the way, this is Steve Harrigan from Fox News. Someone who's been on the battle field. Someone who knows earplugs when he sees them.

(08-27-2014 12:10 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Further to my point,

You can take what I just said and break all of that down by all sort of other things, income, location, etc.

The point is that just like any statistic, they can be made to say whatever you want them to. It's folly to try and use data like that to claim one group is intellectually superior to another.

That's why half my argument is to just look at the conservative party platform (pro evolution, climate change doesn't exist, gays are scary) to find your answer

(08-27-2014 11:48 AM)john01992 Wrote:  



You lose....again

Hold your horses. Don't tell me you fell for the IQ by state hoax from the elections that democrats ran with and The Economist and others had to retract? It was a hoax

Even your second chart says it shouldn't be taken as fact at the bottom. LOL

Didn't we see this "shouldn't be taken as fact" hoax more than a year ago?!?



Brilliant jonnyzerO slow on the uptake , yet again. hahahaha.

What a bunch of garbage stats anyway. Who actually showed up and voted? Who stayed home on the couch? This would be an average of all voters, right? Not simply the resident population, correct?

Only a moron spurred by abject desperation would willingly and happily fall for something this simplistic and braindead. Congratulations jonnyzerO, you fit the bill!