doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[doubtingthomas]

you know there are quite a few of us over 45 , we just cannot keep up with you.

I have learned a lot from you.

The over 45 post was not intended for intelligent people like you.

[Morley]

By now, everyone has read the study and they have found out that said study has nothing to do with your original post.

Did you learn something?

I learned to not give you the benefit of the doubt. Once again, I learned that you don't tell the truth. I learned that when you misrepresent what a study or article says, you euphemistically call it "imprecise wording." I learned that you will do almost anything for a little attention.

[doubtingthomas]

I learned that you will do almost anything for a little attention.

I hope to get some attention because I believe the issues I bring up are very important.

Once again, I learned that you don't tell the truth.

BS! About what?

Did you tell the truth here?

No, it doesn't say that.

We measured aggression by giving participants the opportunity to damage another person's chances of getting a desirable job. This constitutes a measure of aggression because the evaluation has the potential to thwart the person's personal and career goals, a retaliation just as meaningful as physical harm.

Anyways, I don't need your attention. I'll just block you, how about that?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I was a husband to a normal woman, Doc. I had some great dates not long ago, by the way.

1) No you weren’t.

2) I guarantee anyone you went on a date with didn’t feel similarly.

The reader should note that DT said he read the study. He did not. He lied about, and continues to lie about reading it.

He’s weak, undisciplined, and incapable of bettering himself.

- Doc

[Morley]

Once again, I learned that you don't tell the truth.

Did you tell the truth here?

No, it doesn't say that.

We measured aggression by giving participants the opportunity to damage another person's chances of getting a desirable job. This constitutes a measure of aggression because the evaluation has the potential to thwart the person's personal and career goals, a retaliation just as meaningful as physical harm.

You know that I told the truth. Even you don't think that the above passage means that "retaliation is just as meaningful as physical harm."

[Res Ipsa]

Cite the study that supports your claim that making children afraid of each other will result in increased inclusion.

Here's what I said, "Fearmongering. Tell the parents that bullying and social exclusion increases the chances that a kid brings a weapon to school.".

Fearmongering - the act of spreading needless fear; exaggerating purported threats in order to incite fear.

It works. Better to be safe than sorry.

The cited study did not study long-term loneliness and did not study “violent behavior.” There was literally nothing accurate about your original claim about the study.

This is chronic.

I am not the only one here who doesn't use precise wording all time, and I don't make a big deal about the imprecise wording of others. As I said before, my wording is sometimes a clickbait.

The main point is still true, regardless. Long-term loneliness is very similar to social isolation, there's no need to picky about all possible differences, Jesus Christ. And aggression is just as meaningful as violence. And I was clearly talking about social exclusion in the opening post.

I am honestly afraid of being randomly attacked by a stranger. Why? Because there's an increasing number of young men who get rejected by society.

I don't know why you forgot to quote that.

And I don't fear for my life. It's very improbable that I get attacked by a stranger.

Cite your evidence that lying to parents about the risk that their children will do something that triggers a mass shooting will reduce social exclusion. Your claim that fearmongering “works” has no credibility.

I quoted you own words — the exact words you used to describe the study. The rest of your post did not purport to be a description of the study.

Your “I’m not precise” excuse has worn out its welcome. You weren’t imprecise. Everything in your description was flat out false. There is no way you could have read that study and given it the 100% false description you gave.

Here’s what you just quoted from your own OP:

“ I am honestly afraid of being randomly attacked by a stranger.”

And then in the next breath:

“ And I don't fear for my life. It's very improbable that I get attacked by a stranger.”

Ok, so when you say “honestly,” you really mean “I’m lying.” And, no, “clickbait” Is not an excuse for flat out lying.

[doubtingthomas]

You know that I told the truth. Even you don't think that the above passage means that "retaliation is just as meaningful as physical harm."

Retaliation caused by an aggression.

I am sorry for not using precise wording. Can we a discussion about that study?

Cite your evidence that lying to parents about the risk that their children will do something that triggers a mass shooting will reduce social exclusion. Your claim that fearmongering “works” has no credibility.

Schools aggressively mislead students about the risk of AIDS. Why can't schools exaggerate the risk of violence?

[Marcus]

…Schools aggressively mislead students about the risk of AIDS. Why can't schools exaggerate the risk of violence?

Are you serious?

[Res Ipsa]

You know that I told the truth. Even you don't think that the above passage means that "retaliation is just as meaningful as physical harm."

Retaliation caused by an aggression.

I am sorry for not using precise wording. Can we now have a discussion about that study?

Cite your evidence that lying to parents about the risk that their children will do something that triggers a mass shooting will reduce social exclusion. Your claim that fearmongering “works” has no credibility.

Schools have aggressively mislead students about the risks of getting AIDS. Why can't schools exaggerate the risks of violence?

Do my suggestions need to be backed up by research? If yes, does that rule apply to everyone else?

No, I’m happy for you to have confirmed that you’re so invested in payback that you will pull anything out of your ass to make that happen. You have zero evidence that creating an environment of fear among students will reduce social exclusion and you justify flat out lying to students by pointing to alleged lying in the past.

You chastise others when you think they aren’t following the science. Do some real research instead of your result-oriented cherry picking and see what the experts think about lying to students and parents in an attempt to scare them into being more inclusive.

[Res Ipsa]

…Schools aggressively mislead students about the risk of AIDS. Why can't schools exaggerate the risk of violence?

Are you serious?

It explains so much.