Are There More Christians or Atheists in Law School? Forum

[FattyMcFatFat]

I think the problem is

Your writing is incomprehensible bro

Perhaps it could use some improvement. Nevertheless, I think the problem is

Making assumptions like this is a critical factor adding to the perception that law students are sometimes not too bright, which may or may not have anything to do with OP's question about religion. Do you see how quickly this deteriorated into me having to repeatedly refute incorrect assumptions, probably made due to a conscious or subconscious partisan bias? The quality of my writing has nothing to do with the fact that you did not ask for clarification and chose to infer what you did.

And this

I suspect that it's this sort of . . . ignorance of economic reality among current and prospective law students that, at least in part, motivated the earlier questions about law student intelligence.

[Ludo!]

I think the problem is

Your writing is incomprehensible bro

Perhaps it could use some improvement. Nevertheless, I think the problem is

The quality of my writing has nothing to do with the fact that you did not ask for clarification and chose to infer what you did.

I don't even know if I disagree with you or not because I have no clue what you're saying

[FattyMcFatFat]

I think the problem is

Your writing is incomprehensible bro

Perhaps it could use some improvement. Nevertheless, I think the problem is

The quality of my writing has nothing to do with the fact that you did not ask for clarification and chose to infer what you did.

I don't even know if I disagree with you or not because I have no clue what you're saying

... well this is definitely an improvement. Kudos bro. Now, the next thing that respectable people do when they are unsure about what someone is saying is not to make assumptions motivated by groupthink and partisanship, make shit up, or demonize the speaking party based upon false assumptions, but to ask for clarification. We aren't there yet, but we're heading in the right direction.

[071816]

... well this is definitely an improvement. Kudos bro. Now, the next thing that respectable people do when they are unsure about what someone is saying is not to make assumptions motivated by groupthink and partisanship, make shit up, or demonize the speaking party based upon false assumptions, but to ask for clarification. We aren't there yet, but we're heading in the right direction.

huh

[Ludo!]

... well this is definitely an improvement. Kudos bro. Now, the next thing that respectable people do when they are unsure about what someone is saying is not to make assumptions motivated by groupthink and partisanship, make shit up, or demonize the speaking party based upon false assumptions, but to ask for clarification. We aren't there yet, but we're heading in the right direction.

CLARIFY why "gas prices were trending downward during the Bush administration" and "The "gas prices trending downward" in the long run guy was Bush" are not the same thing

[bjsesq]

What's with the recent influx of people who think that by writing in the most complicated, stilted manner possible, they somehow gain credibility?


<<<<<<<<<<< GROUPTHINKER

[FattyMcFatFat]

... well this is definitely an improvement. Kudos bro. Now, the next thing that respectable people do when they are unsure about what someone is saying is not to make assumptions motivated by groupthink and partisanship, make shit up, or demonize the speaking party based upon false assumptions, but to ask for clarification. We aren't there yet, but we're heading in the right direction.

huh

It's related to this, about which DesertFox and I seem to agree:

1. Who cares?

2. It's not like law students try and push their beliefs on fellow law students all the time.

2 is hilariously false, but strangely true about religion.

The inclination that law students sometimes have to "push their beliefs on fellow law students" seems to be motivated by the same thing that motivates their tendency to make partisan assumptions, surround themselves with like-minded people (thus, effectuating "groupthink"), "make shit up," and "demonize the speaking party."

[ChikaBoom]

I think the problem is

Your writing is incomprehensible bro

Perhaps it could use some improvement. Nevertheless, I think the problem is

The quality of my writing has nothing to do with the fact that you did not ask for clarification and chose to infer what you did.

Well then clarify, broheim. You mean that Bush put into place oil policies during his administration that over an indeterminate period of time will lower the price of oil? How is that working out for us? It's still high. What policies are these specifically and when do we see the result of it? 'The future', by the way, is a vague and unacceptable answer unless it is confined to a certain time frame due to additional supporting or detracting policies and mitigating circumstances that may have altered the intent and execution of the original policies. That is to say, Bush being pro-drilling and raping of the gulf will not necessarily mean that, after two democratic terms, the oil situation will be any more likely geared towards lowered pricing in three decades or whatever time period you threw out there a few posts ago.

But, then, I am a partisan, groupthinking, raging liberal and I probably don't understand what you're saying because I am too dense to read it.

Since when did assuming everyone else is stupid because they disagree with you make one a 'reasonable person'? I am certainly not attempting to foist my beliefs on you, as I don't care what you believe. I simply thought we were having a conversation.

[ScottRiqui]

then we had the Texas oil man who had us paying 3.50 a gallon for gas, and now we're on to Obama... the guy who thinks windows on airplanes should open and has us paying 4.00 a gallon for gas.

Man we need another president like Lincoln...

The "windows on airplanes" guy was Romney, not Obama. And although national average gas prices under Obama did kiss $4/gallon a few times, it's down to $3.52 and trending downward.

The "gas prices trending downward" in the long run guy was Bush ("but, but, he was dumb and stuff," right?), despite Obama. This is is the sort of partisan ignorance I'm talking about. I am disappoint.

Since you're so big into clarity, perhaps you could tell me which part of my post was "partisan ignorance" and made you "disappoint"? I only made three assertions in my post:

1) The "windows on airplane" quote was from Romney, not Obama.
2) National average gasoline prices are down to $3.52 per gallon.
3) The national average gasoline prices are trending downward.

[071816]

... well this is definitely an improvement. Kudos bro. Now, the next thing that respectable people do when they are unsure about what someone is saying is not to make assumptions motivated by groupthink and partisanship, make shit up, or demonize the speaking party based upon false assumptions, but to ask for clarification. We aren't there yet, but we're heading in the right direction.

huh

It's related to this, about which DesertFox and I seem to agree:

1. Who cares?

2. It's not like law students try and push their beliefs on fellow law students all the time.

2 is hilariously false, but strangely true about religion.

The inclination that law students sometimes have to "push their beliefs on fellow law students" seems to be motivated by the same thing that motivates their tendency to make partisan assumptions, surround themselves with like-minded people (thus, effectuating "groupthink"), "make shit up," and "demonize the speaking party."

huh

[FattyMcFatFat]

... well this is definitely an improvement. Kudos bro. Now, the next thing that respectable people do when they are unsure about what someone is saying is not to make assumptions motivated by groupthink and partisanship, make shit up, or demonize the speaking party based upon false assumptions, but to ask for clarification. We aren't there yet, but we're heading in the right direction.

CLARIFY why "gas prices were trending downward during the Bush administration" and "The "gas prices trending downward" in the long run guy was Bush" are not the same thing

I am happy to. Thank you for asking. What I was trying to say, in other words, is that the slight downward trend in gas prices that has occured recently, and seems likely to continue over the long run, is due to increased present and future domestic oil production. The present and future increase in domestic oil production is, in turn, the consequence of policies that were pursued while Bush was president. See, e.g.,

http://money.usnews.com/money/personal- ... nergy-boom
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/50 ... ependence/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/ ... -applause/

I pointed this out because a previous poster mentioned that gas prices had "kissed" $4.00 per gallon over the past few years, but were trending downward, implying that current domestic oil policy (under President Obama) should be credited for this.

Does that make sense?

[FattyMcFatFat]

I think the problem is

Your writing is incomprehensible bro

Perhaps it could use some improvement. Nevertheless, I think the problem is

The quality of my writing has nothing to do with the fact that you did not ask for clarification and chose to infer what you did.

Well then clarify, broheim. You mean that Bush put into place oil policies during his administration that over an indeterminate period of time will lower the price of oil? How is that working out for us? It's still high. What policies are these specifically and when do we see the result of it? 'The future', by the way, is a vague and unacceptable answer unless it is confined to a certain time frame due to additional supporting or detracting policies and mitigating circumstances that may have altered the intent and execution of the original policies. That is to say, Bush being pro-drilling and raping of the gulf will not necessarily mean that, after two democratic terms, the oil situation will be any more likely geared towards lowered pricing in three decades or whatever time period you threw out there a few posts ago.

But, then, I am a partisan, groupthinking, raging liberal and I probably don't understand what you're saying because I am too dense to read it.

Since when did assuming everyone else is stupid because they disagree with you make one a 'reasonable person'? I am certainly not attempting to foist my beliefs on you, as I don't care what you believe. I simply thought we were having a conversation.

I give up.

Maybe we should get this thread back on track. Let's talk religion. Or how about that Palestine situation? Jews or Muslims? Who are you rooting for?

[bjsesq]

I give up.

Maybe we should get this thread back on track. Let's talk religion. How about that Palestine situation?

Remember, no matter how many people can't understand what the hell you wrote, it is THEIR problem.

[FattyMcFatFat]

I give up.

Maybe we should get this thread back on track. Let's talk religion. How about that Palestine situation?

Remember, no matter how many people can't understand what the hell you wrote, it is THEIR problem.

Fuckin' A right doggie. Thanks for the support bro.

[09042014]

I give up.

Maybe we should get this thread back on track. Let's talk religion. How about that Palestine situation?

Remember, no matter how many people can't understand what the hell you wrote, it is THEIR problem.

AKA The Desert Fox Maxim

[shredderrrrrr]

I would be shocked if it was proportional to society in general.

Why is that?

Basic assumptions being greater IQ than average for society = less likely to be religious

Second assumption being greater IQ than average for society = more likely to be in law school

And that's about it

Neither of those assumptions are true, and the first one is actually fairly stupid

0 desire to read your guys' back-and-forth, but a simple Google search provides:

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence, demonstrated that Atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions.

Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries.[10] The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 IQ points higher than non atheists.

Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which was determined to be “highly statistically significant”.

A study published in Social Psychology Quarterly in March 2010 also stated that "atheism ...correlate with higher intelligence"

And just to be clear, I don't care about what religion someone is or think that one persuasion is "better" than the other. I'm just pointing out that your assertion that the original comment was stupid is wrong.

[calidancer2]

I give up.

Maybe we should get this thread back on track. Let's talk religion. How about that Palestine situation?

Remember, no matter how many people can't understand what the hell you wrote, it is THEIR problem.

Fuckin' A right doggie. Thanks for the support bro.

glad you finally stopped using thesaurus.com

[ScottRiqui]

I pointed this out because a previous poster mentioned that gas prices had "kissed" $4.00 per gallon over the past few years, but were trending downward, implying that current domestic oil policy (under President Obama) should be credited for this.

Does that make sense?

I wasn't "implying" a damned thing about Obama's domestic oil policy. I posted those facts simply to rebut the earlier poster's characterization of Obama as the guy who "has us paying 4.00 a gallon for gas."

If you're going to complain about people "making shit up" about your posts, would you kindly tend to the beam in your own eye first?

[FattyMcFatFat]

I give up.

Maybe we should get this thread back on track. Let's talk religion. How about that Palestine situation?

Remember, no matter how many people can't understand what the hell you wrote, it is THEIR problem.

Fuckin' A right doggie. Thanks for the support bro.

glad you finally stopped using thesaurus.com

Remember, no matter how many people can't understand what the hell you wrote, it is THEIR problem.

get some thesaurus skills bro.

[FattyMcFatFat]

I pointed this out because a previous poster mentioned that gas prices had "kissed" $4.00 per gallon over the past few years, but were trending downward, implying that current domestic oil policy (under President Obama) should be credited for this.

Does that make sense?

I wasn't "implying" a damned thing about Obama's domestic oil policy. I posted those facts simply to rebut the earlier poster's characterization of Obama as the guy who "has us paying 4.00 a gallon for gas."

If you're going to complain about people "making shit up" about your posts, would you kindly tend to the beam in your own eye first?

Yes. I understood your post perfectly. We seem to disagree about the definition of the word "credited."

We're getting this thread back on track now though. OP asked about the religious views of law students. You seem like a law student. Palestine: Jews or Muslims? Who ya got?


ibtlormaybebanhammer.

[rinkrat19]

I pointed this out because a previous poster mentioned that gas prices had "kissed" $4.00 per gallon over the past few years, but were trending downward, implying that current domestic oil policy (under President Obama) should be credited for this.

Does that make sense?

I wasn't "implying" a damned thing about Obama's domestic oil policy. I posted those facts simply to rebut the earlier poster's characterization of Obama as the guy who "has us paying 4.00 a gallon for gas."

If you're going to complain about people "making shit up" about your posts, would you kindly tend to the beam in your own eye first?

Yes. I understood your post perfectly. We seem to disagree about the definition of the word "credited."

We're getting this thread back on track now though. OP asked about the religious views of law students. You seem like a law student. Palestine: Jews or Muslims? Who ya got?


ibtlormaybebanhammer.

I personally think both sides are retarded for fighting over such an objectively shitty piece of land. But that's just my preference for not living in a barren desert wasteland talking.

[FattyMcFatFat]

I pointed this out because a previous poster mentioned that gas prices had "kissed" $4.00 per gallon over the past few years, but were trending downward, implying that current domestic oil policy (under President Obama) should be credited for this.

Does that make sense?

I wasn't "implying" a damned thing about Obama's domestic oil policy. I posted those facts simply to rebut the earlier poster's characterization of Obama as the guy who "has us paying 4.00 a gallon for gas."

If you're going to complain about people "making shit up" about your posts, would you kindly tend to the beam in your own eye first?

Yes. I understood your post perfectly. We seem to disagree about the definition of the word "credited."

We're getting this thread back on track now though. OP asked about the religious views of law students. You seem like a law student. Palestine: Jews or Muslims? Who ya got?


ibtlormaybebanhammer.

I personally think both sides are retarded for fighting over such an objectively shitty piece of land. But that's just my preference for not living in a barren desert wasteland talking.

Having lived in a barren desert wasteland in the same region, I will say that your preference is understandable. However, it is Mesopotamia bro. It's biblical and stuff. Sentimental value means nothing to you?

[rinkrat19]

I personally think both sides are retarded for fighting over such an objectively shitty piece of land. But that's just my preference for not living in a barren desert wasteland talking.

Having lived in a barren desert wasteland in the same region, I will say that your concern is warranted. However, it is Mesopotamia bro. It's biblical and stuff. Sentimental value means nothing to you?

Not religious sentiment, no, because I think religion is silly.
I'm more concerned with either side blowing up ancient archeological sites of interest. I don't care who gets to live there. (How about nobody, and we turn it into a tourist/research site to be preserved for future generations?)

I have less interest in preserving Gaza than the Valley of the Kings in Egypt.

[Tom Joad]

Cool flawed intelligence studies, bro.

[gguuueessttt]

I would be shocked if it was proportional to society in general.

Why is that?

Basic assumptions being greater IQ than average for society = less likely to be religious

Second assumption being greater IQ than average for society = more likely to be in law school

And that's about it

Neither of those assumptions are true, and the first one is actually fairly stupid

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-bar ... 53414.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132655.htm