Fail Quotes

[dallen68]

@ Travis -

Well, I guess you're allowed to, but that just means there's no reason for anyone else to listen to you. That said, I'm amazed how many people on some sort of moral crusade write articles like this; and even more stupefied they actually get published. One example I can think of his all the flak Harry Potter took a number of years back. Rowling's response to one letter that was published was hilarious though.

[AnCap Dave]

I'm calling bullshit on these statistics. They also admit that they're using 2009 statistics for a 2014 report.

[yt]PEH1nLoC_9c[/yt]

[dallen68]

I'm calling bullshit on these statistics. They also admit that they're using 2009 statistics for a 2014 report.

The statistics themselves are probably pretty accurate, and it does take a while for them to get published, so the time frame is also about as good as it's going to get. The bullshit is how they're being presented here.

If it were anything else, like say a disease, having just shy of 8,000 victims a year in a population of 350 million wouldn't even be worth mentioning let alone trying to make it sound like it's a big epidemic. (I think it comes out to 0.08 cases per 100,000)

As a special bonus bullshit: The safety course/video presented. I have a feeling that will be about as effective as stranger danger.

[Travis Retriever]

I have a feeling that will be about as effective as stranger danger.

Oh gods. I still remember that bit from way back when.  I guess nobody told the video making busy-bodies at the time that the vast majority of abuse to children, rape, etc are done by people the victim knows.

[dallen68]

Oh gods. I still remember that bit from way back when.  I guess nobody told the video making busy-bodies at the time that the vast majority of abuse to children, rape, etc are done by people the victim knows.

Well, yes. The point I was trying to make is this strategy will probably have the opposite of the intended effect.

Also, their little experiment didn't actually prove any thing. I mean, other than the fact I know more about psychology than that fool.

Tell you what:

Dress up as a beer can, do a song and dance about not drinking beer to a bunch of five year olds. Then come back later as yourself, tell them you have to go *somewhere*, and tell them there's candy on the table. Include a soda that looks like beer (wrapping 7UP with a paper that says "beer" on it should suffice) in the candy. See which candy they go for first.

[Travis Retriever]

Reminds me of the questionable conclusions of this:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19993_the-6-cruelest-science-experiments-ever-were-done-kids.html
(With the last one being just...no, and had me fuming mad.  Fuck you, Doctor Money.)
Considering that even hardened soldiers have a hard time killing people, hell, they even have to make it so not all the guns each person is using when they kill people via firing squad (epic win quote):  http://www.cracked.com/article_18858_the-biggest-star-wars-plot-hole-explained-by-science.html

It also makes me wonder how they explain the *DECREASE* in homicides (if not shootings themselves) since the advent of violent video games like GTA?

[dallen68]

It also makes me wonder how they explain the *DECREASE* in homicides (if not shootings themselves) since the advent of violent video games like GTA?

I can explain it by saying that games like GTA allow the users to act out their fantasies in a non-harmful way, and then they're much less likely to be having hostile fantasies in real life.

They explain it by saying GTA causes homicides.   

[MrBogosity]

Reminds me of the questionable conclusions of this:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19993_the-6-cruelest-science-experiments-ever-were-done-kids.html

They got just about every detail of the Robber's Cave experiment wrong. The groups didn't give themselves names and distinct identities until AFTER they'd met each other (they didn't need them before) and they weren't doing it "to see how much conflict they could instigate between the two groups." The point of the experiment was to see how to bring different groups together: they mention the games, which didn't work; neither did the fireworks show. But what DID work was a common problem (fixing the park's water supply), working together to raise the funds to show Treasure Island at the park, and a common enemy (rumors of vandals in the park). In fact, the entire last week of the 3-week experiment was about bringing the two groups together in conciliation. At the end of the experiment, the two groups ate together in peace, and they even asked if they could go home together on the same bus. When the counselor said yes, they cheered--and the seating was NOT self-segregated.

"Yep, Sherif and his team had successfully transformed 22 ordinary 11-year-old boys with no previous behavioral problems into a mob of aggressive savages." Absolutely, completely, totally 100% FALSE.

When you leave out vital info like that to make the experiment seem horrible when it wasn't, I have to wonder about the rest of it.

But yeah, Dr. Money is scum on the order of Nazi concentration camp experimenters.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

From Angry Joe when people complained about him talking politics.

"Angry Joe, please refrain from giving your personal beliefs via Twitter if they dont line up with mine, respectfully - PoliticalDrone 3000"

Way to act like a child. Hey, maybe some people don't care about politics and would rather not deal with it.
Seriously, the way this guy acts with people who disagree with him really makes me want to forget this guy.

[dallen68]

From Angry Joe when people complained about him talking politics.

Way to act like a child. Hey, maybe some people don't care about politics and would rather not deal with it.
Seriously, the way this guy acts with people who disagree with him really makes me want to forget this guy.

Maybe some context would help? What's this post supposed to be in response to? Is Angry Joe the one that's supposed to be being childish, or is Political Drone 3000? Whichever way it is, if Angry Joe's opinion bothers him so much, why not unfollow?

[Dallas Wildman]

[yt]X2r3IIJj0I4[/yt]

Dear lord, hard to listen to this guy at times.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Maybe some context would help? What's this post supposed to be in response to? Is Angry Joe the one that's supposed to be being childish, or is Political Drone 3000? Whichever way it is, if Angry Joe's opinion bothers him so much, why not unfollow?

Its a blanket statement towards everyone asking him not to talk about politics.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

[yt]X2r3IIJj0I4[/yt]

Dear lord, hard to listen to this guy at times.

Ok, did he really just say that about EBT users?

[Travis Retriever]

Ok, did he really just say that about EBT users?

Did AlfonZo Rachael EVER say something that wasn't an epic fail?

[nilecroc]

http://gizmodo.com/federal-court-invalidates-net-neutrality-rules-sides-w-1501028467?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't know much about net neutrality rules, but this seems to be blown way the fuck out of proportion.