Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Mon Sep 30 15:01:44 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:t0vdpug9k8gu74330frje1ukj0f5e8vqmr at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >According to this CBS Poll:
>
> >Only 18% of Americans believe a war with Iraq will reduce terrorism.
> >
> >Yet 58% believe we should attack Iraq anyway, and 57% believe we should
do
> >it even if it involves "substantial military casualties".
>
> Makes sense, since Bush's argument pertains more to the thread of
> Hussein's using WMDs
>
> >Only 20% believe the UN can prevent Iraq from developing WMDs ["weapons
of
> >mass destruction"].
> >
> >Yet 52% believe the US should follow the UN lead in Iraq.
>
> No conflict.  People do not consider that if the US acts following the
> UN lead, that this is "the UN preventing Iraq from developing weapons
> of mass destruction".
>
> Indeed, since a very high percentage (77%) think that he already has
> weapons of mass destruction, it is already too late to try to prevent
> Iraq from developing them, and 61% believe he plans to use the WMDs
> against the US, which makes the threat quite personal.

The question states "developing weapons of mass destruction", which doesn't
even address the ones he's already developed.

Even though you jews and "liberals" can't possibly be expected to understand
the point, most normal people answering this question know what is meant by
it, which is partly why 82% do NOT believe a war with Iraq would be
effective.

If the 18% who are STUPID enough to believe that a war with Iraq will reduce
terrorism are the same people as the 20% who are STUPID enough to believe
that the UN can prevent Iraq from developing WMDs (plus another 2%--probably
jews or "liberals" like you, who obviously can't even understand the
question anyway), then 80% of Americans don't believe that a war with Iraq
will either reduce WMDs nor terrorism.

Does it trouble you at all that 68% approve of the US military removing
Sadam from power even though only 20% see any benefit from it?  Does it
trouble you at all that this is a violation of international treaties, of
the US Constitution, of UN resolutions, of the opinion of the vast majority
of people in the world, of the opinions of most of our top MILITARY men
(which the current encumbants of the White House are NOT)?

Why do you think this 48% who see no benefit in reducing terrorism or WMDs
support this war in Iraq?

Did this poll perhaps miss a key question?


>
> >If all of those who believe a war on Iraq will reduce terrorism also
support
> >this attack on Iraq, and if all of those who belileve the UN can prevent
> >Iraq from developing WMDs also want to follow the UN's lead, then 40% of
> >Americans want to attack Iraq even though they don't believe it will
reduce
> >terrorism, 39% want to do that regardless of what the loss of Amercian
lives
> >involves, and 32% are in favor of UN action in Iraq even though they
don't
> >believe it will reduce Iraq's WMD capabilities.
> >
> >This is called "cognitive dissonance".   No, it's worse than that--it's
> >called "insanity":
>
> No. It is called pre-emptive action against a threat.
>

It is called "48% of Americans want a war but don't even know why" (unless
of course their reason for wanting a war wasn't included in the poll).

This 48% does NOT believe this is a "pre-emptive action against a threat",
because they do NOT believe it will reduce the threat.

Cognitive dissonance?  Insanity?  Or something more sinister?

> (I make no claim as to whether it is right or wrong - but YOUR
> argument is nonsense.)
>
> >Certainly such people should not be permitted to vote,
>
> There is no requirement for sanity in order to vote.
>

Precisely the point.

There SHOULD be.

> >Who are these 32% to 40% of Americans who are so cavalier with American
> >lives and tax dollars that they don't even concern themselves with such
> >trivia as this?  Why shouldn't they be identified and denied the right to
> >vote?   What they're advocating isn't anarchy--it's tyranny.  We've had
> >enough failed government programs to last a lifetime, so why should
> >taxpaying American workers be saddled with any more of their nonsense?
>
> Because a high percentage of the taxpayers agree with them (and in
> fact they are probably MOST of them).

Women as a group don't pay federal taxes.  This is 52% of the population.
Niggers as a group get back $800 billion more in social transfer payments
than they contribute to GDP.  This is 12% of the population.  Mexicans get
back $200 billion more than they contribute, and they're 8% of the
population.

52% women + 6% nigger men + 4% Mexican men = 62% who as a group do NOT pay
federal taxes, which means that they're voting to spend money that's not
theirs, that they never earned.

The odds are pretty good that all of this 40% who are in favor of a war that
they KNOW will produce no results are these MORONS who are on the public
dole.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list