Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
The Explosivly Popular P.O.D.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caedmon" data-source="post: 283457" data-attributes="member: 153"><p>Susan I read the article, and a <em>lot</em> of their statements are poor commentaries, twisted to fit their agenda. Some of them are real bellylaughs.</p><p></p><p>The following is not directed toward you specifically Susan, but it is a reality for some people. Now the thing about it is, the authors of the article use the most "truthful", aka "convincing", arguments first, and leave the whoppers down at the bottom of the article, after most people have gotten too bored to continue reading. But for some that <strong>do</strong> read down to the bottom, those are the ones that proceed with a predeveloped <em>urgent desire</em> to believe in the "veracity" of the arguments in the article to justify their subjective feelings, and by that time, they're more than happy to fudge over the more far-fetched emotionally charged statements at the end. It's a basic cultic/progandandistic technique: draw them in with quasi-feasible statements and prooftexting(and loads of charismatic emotionality), and when they're hooked, feed their passions with fantastic feel-good strawmen.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caedmon, post: 283457, member: 153"] Susan I read the article, and a [I]lot[/I] of their statements are poor commentaries, twisted to fit their agenda. Some of them are real bellylaughs. The following is not directed toward you specifically Susan, but it is a reality for some people. Now the thing about it is, the authors of the article use the most "truthful", aka "convincing", arguments first, and leave the whoppers down at the bottom of the article, after most people have gotten too bored to continue reading. But for some that [B]do[/B] read down to the bottom, those are the ones that proceed with a predeveloped [I]urgent desire[/I] to believe in the "veracity" of the arguments in the article to justify their subjective feelings, and by that time, they're more than happy to fudge over the more far-fetched emotionally charged statements at the end. It's a basic cultic/progandandistic technique: draw them in with quasi-feasible statements and prooftexting(and loads of charismatic emotionality), and when they're hooked, feed their passions with fantastic feel-good strawmen. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
The Explosivly Popular P.O.D.
Top
Bottom