quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Peon, on other threads you suggested the Daily Mail was so dishonest that articles by it cannot be taken seriously unless another source backs it up. It sounded like you placed it almost on a par with the "bus found in South Pole" shenanigans of the Daily Sport.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Peon, on other threads you suggested the Daily Mail was so dishonest that articles by it cannot be taken seriously unless another source backs it up. It sounded like you placed it almost on a par with the "bus found in South Pole" shenanigans of the Daily Sport.

No I didn't, Anax.  I didn't just suggest it, I said it, and frequently.  I've actually had an article published in the Mail which was completely made up.  They printed it, paid me £500 and never checked on the slightest detail of it.  They didn't even check on my name.  The Mail prints bollocks. 

Hell's bells, this is beginning to remind me of the T shirt I once wore, that had emblazoned on it the logo "Eschew Obfuscation".   A very stoned guy in a pub once asked me, "What does that mean?"  I told him, and after he'd sat there staring, bleary-eyed, at me for while, finally barked out triumphantly, "But that comment itself is an obfuscation!"  That comment of Kirata's about your 'good call' earlier was one that I assumed would be obvious to everyone - and the reason why I deliberately cited the Mail.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Fair enough, you assumed everyone would know your opinions on the Mail. I'm not sure that would have necessarily been the case but be that as it may, you then cited it as the source for a report which posited an argument that people of a certain political persuasion tend to be less intelligent that others. I took that as the topic for the thread. The fact that the Mail published such a story should be seen as a positive because it dealt with a story in an impartial fashion that wouldn't be in keeping with some sort of right-wing agenda that many accuse it of. Quite the contrary in fact. That was really the essence of my point. Your response that they were defaming science doesn't seem likely as they don't criticise it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Montana32DDD

This article is a perfect example of Left Wing Projection. Any Claims of Right Wingers being stupid are just that, claims. Any claims that Left Wingers are smart are also just claims. In My experience, growing up in New York City, Left Wingers protect themselves by dismissing and ignoring the right. Left Wingers live in a fantasy bubble. Upon Leaving the vaunted City of New York *Where right wing thought is all but banned) and moving to "Fly Over Country" I can tell you this. In My experience Left Wingers are Ignorant, intolerant, and rude. Right Wingers are generally a lot more tolerant, a hell of a lot smarter than ANY left winger will give the right credit for. Right Wingers are also more polite, more charitable, and open minded. Also, Left Wingers are always the first to engage in character assassination as soon as they find out you do not agree with the left. Left Wing people are very very rude, engaging in anti social behavior to anyone who does not share their views. Gay Marriage is a perfect example of this, where any support for the traditional family is dismissed as hatred. I also believe that Left wing policies hurt the economy. Example: the current Economic downturn after three years of Democrat Majority Rule is dismissed as Bush's fault. Any one who applies the logic that the people currently in charge have a hand in the current mess is dismissed as racism. This is not an intelligent position. This is a perfect example of just how intellectually dishonest the left HAS to be. Cheers.

quote:

All right wingers are not stupid, as all stupid people are not right wingers.

quote:

Now as far as this person....

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Fair enough, you assumed everyone would know your opinions on the Mail. I'm not sure that would have necessarily been the case but be that as it may, you then cited it as the source for a report which posited an argument that people of a certain political persuasion tend to be less intelligent that others. I took that as the topic for the thread. The fact that the Mail published such a story should be seen as a positive because it dealt with a story in an impartial fashion that wouldn't be in keeping with some sort of right-wing agenda that many accuse it of. Quite the contrary in fact. That was really the essence of my point. Your response that they were defaming science doesn't seem likely as they don't criticise it.

Well, if people didn't know my opinions on the Mail, they did after you pointed them out.

quote:


As to 'my response that they were defaming science', what I said was "Assuming this bit of research exists and does actually say what the Mail claims it says (two big assumptions), I've no idea why they'd choose to publicise it. Perhaps to show, once again, just why scientists are such terrible people? Beats me." In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

quote:


Perhaps the Mail's editor assumed that his readership would 'see it for the self-evident nonsense that it was'. But that seems implausible. The Mail certainly doesn't make a habit of challenging its readers - far from it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

... and see where your friends and family lie along the tolerance spectrum, and see if there is any pattern.
.

quote:

'Nuff said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Well, if people didn't know my opinions on the Mail, they did after you pointed them out.

quote:

So why take issue with my pointing it out?

quote:


As to 'my response that they were defaming science', what I said was "Assuming this bit of research exists and does actually say what the Mail claims it says (two big assumptions), I've no idea why they'd choose to publicise it. Perhaps to show, once again, just why scientists are such terrible people? Beats me." In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

quote:

I already pointed out that your assumption was implausible when I pointed out that there were two fairly obvious questions you might ask if you doubt that the research exists or doubt that the research as the main covers it:
a) why would the Mail invent research that made the kind of politics they largely advocate look bad, and (b) if there was research but they misled their readers regarding the findings, again why would they portray the findings in a negative light to make the kind of politics they advocate look bad? IMO the only fair conclusion is that the research is real and quite accurately reflected in the article because to suggest otherwise would be a very peculiar circumstance where the Mail intentionally acted against their own interests.

quote:


Perhaps the Mail's editor assumed that his readership would 'see it for the self-evident nonsense that it was'. But that seems implausible. The Mail certainly doesn't make a habit of challenging its readers - far from it.

quote:

Why is it self-evident nonsense? There are quite a few studies out there that try to draw a parallel between intelligence or other mental/psychological characteristics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strongmindbody

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

... and see where your friends and family lie along the tolerance spectrum, and see if there is any pattern.
.

Lol, but of course, this presupposes that we can accurately judge, and that by judging we do not in fact lower our own tolerance score. After all, isn't our assessment of another's intolerance likely to be influenced more by the degree of disagreement from our own views than by already assuming the conclusion: that our own purported intelligence makes us sufficiently tolerant to our own biases that we can make a fair assessment of others?

This is making my head swim. Maybe I'm just dim witted. And therefore intolerant...

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Well, if people didn't know my opinions on the Mail, they did after you pointed them out.

quote:

So why take issue with my pointing it out?

I didn't, so much as take issue with the 'Aha, gotcha!' tone of yours and Kirata's comments added together. My own feeling was, 'Yes, yes - well done . . . .'

quote:

quote:


As to 'my response that they were defaming science', what I said was "Assuming this bit of research exists and does actually say what the Mail claims it says (two big assumptions), I've no idea why they'd choose to publicise it. Perhaps to show, once again, just why scientists are such terrible people? Beats me." In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

quote:

I already pointed out that your assumption was implausible when I pointed out that there were two fairly obvious questions you might ask if you doubt that the research exists or doubt that the research as the main covers it:
a) why would the Mail invent research that made the kind of politics they largely advocate look bad, and (b) if there was research but they misled their readers regarding the findings, again why would they portray the findings in a negative light to make the kind of politics they advocate look bad? IMO the only fair conclusion is that the research is real and quite accurately reflected in the article because to suggest otherwise would be a very peculiar circumstance where the Mail intentionally acted against their own interests.

Yes. We both pointed out that the assumption was implausible. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Is it one of 'who said it was implausible first'?

quote:

quote:


Perhaps the Mail's editor assumed that his readership would 'see it for the self-evident nonsense that it was'. But that seems implausible. The Mail certainly doesn't make a habit of challenging its readers - far from it.

quote:

Why is it self-evident nonsense? There are quite a few studies out there that try to draw a parallel between intelligence or other mental/psychological characteristics.

That isn't for me to answer, it's for the regular Mail readers to come up with their own arguments. (You can read a list of these worthies' opinions the comments section below the article if you like.) As far as I'm concerned, there are some good arguments to be made as to why the research findings aren't respectable - but there are scant few to be found amongst those comments.

quote:


I don't know if we're at cross purposes here, Anax. I, like a lot of Brit users of this forum, have been irritated time and again to see non-Brits - and right wing Americans most particularly - cite the Daily Mail as authority. Most of all, its line on the environment is nothing short of nauseating bollocks. Brits keep pointing out why the Mail isn't to be trusted. I'd hoped this thread might discourage people from citing this bloody awful newspaper. Well, funnily enough, in a very ironic way, I do believe this thread might have achieved its purpose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I should add that I'm not a big fan of the Mail. They treated poor old Wossy terribly to get at the BBC but at the same time I can't see how it is a manifestation of evil in print.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I should add that I'm not a big fan of the Mail. They treated poor old Wossy terribly to get at the BBC but at the same time I can't see how it is a manifestation of evil in print.

Did your version support Hitler and Mosley's fascism in the 1930s as did the Brit version of the Mail? Some would argue that pretty much does qualify as 'evil in print'.

quote:


Normally, the Mail fits just about the best I've seen to what Terry Pratchett calls an 'Oldspaper'. That is, it doesn't print the news so much as the 'same old story', updated. Stories that allow the reader, every day, to think "Pah! Just as I always thought. Immigrants, single mothers, lack of discipline, the lazy and workshy, Miliband obviously a damned commie. But isn't the Queen first rate? [etc, etc, etc]"

The Mail Online, though, is a little different. Actually, it's quite weirdly different. Here's what Charlie Brooker of The Guardian thought of that 'right wingers are dimwits' article and the Mail Online in particular.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Right wingers are thicker than lefties

Intellectually? Youbetchya!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Funnier part is I think she was serious.